>> I was handling the rest, fixing `global' glitches here and there.
>> Since I'm no longer actively maintaining groff, the glitches become
>> more visible. We need someone who is going to handle this...
>> Basically for license issues, Ingo won't do that, which is a pity,
>> but we have to accep
> Von: "Ingo Schwarze"
>
>
> 2014-06-21 Ingo Schwarze
>
> * Makefile.in: Unbreak make install:
> Add missing gideal dirs to the dist tarball.
>
>
> commit ec7cf4a2b06b21431fe576cc96960b1b5f1d2309
> Author: Ingo Schwarze
> Date: Sat Jun 21 23:06:17 2014 +0200
>
> unbreak
Hi Ingo,
> However, i would consider it common practice for upstream committers
> to test the build before committing
I'm surprised groff's autoconf Makefile.in doesn't have a `distcheck'
target or similar that carries out the actions of automake:
https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html
Hi Vaibhaw,
> Don't we have a formal unit-test/review cycle around the commits we
> make into the code base? Also do we have any test suites around major
> packages that can quickly sanitize our checkins?
There's no `make check' content for groff, no.
> Or an automated build and test system?
I'
> I'm surprised groff's autoconf Makefile.in doesn't have a
> `distcheck' target or similar that carries out the actions of
> automake: [...]
As mentioned already some time ago, converting groff to using automake
would give us all those targets for free...
Werner
Hi,
Bernd Warken wrote on Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:24:56PM +0200:
> Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> 2014-06-21 Ingo Schwarze
>>
>> * Makefile.in: Unbreak make install:
>> Add missing gideal dirs to the dist tarball.
>>
>> commit ec7cf4a2b06b21431fe576cc96960b1b5f1d2309
>> Author: Ingo Schwa
Hi Ralph,
Ralph Corderoy wrote on Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:47:45PM +0100:
> Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> However, i would consider it common practice for upstream committers
>> to test the build before committing
> I'm surprised groff's autoconf Makefile.in doesn't have a `distcheck'
> target or simil
Hi Werner,
Werner LEMBERG wrote on Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 09:01:46AM +0200:
> What we are discussing right now is not bug handling per se,
> but checking the current integrity of the git groff repository,
> ensuring that it simply compiles and install.
Actually, to be honest, i am more worried abo
Hi Igno,
> If "make dist" isn't run before commit (or the result ignored, or run
> in a way that is ineffective for finding problems), what makes you
> think that "make distcheck" would be used well if it existed?
Well, quite right. Hopefully, the few committers will learn to adopt
that habit, p
> Von: "Ingo Schwarze"
> >>* Makefile.in: Unbreak make install:
> >>Add missing gideal dirs to the dist tarball.
> >>
> >> commit ec7cf4a2b06b21431fe576cc96960b1b5f1d2309
> >> Author: Ingo Schwarze
> >> Date: Sat Jun 21 23:06:17 2014 +0200
> >>
> >> unbreak make install: add missi
Hi Bernd,
Bernd Warken wrote on Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 06:10:42PM +0200:
> You're right, sorry. I corrected it again and hope that
> it is now ok.
Thank you.
What you committed now agrees with what i had in my git clone,
so it's working now.
Yours,
Ingo
Hi all,
I've been using groff for about two years, mainly at work for some
technical documents. I've read the mission statement and the discussions
on the various topics with lots of interests and now I would like to try
to contribute. In order to understand the overall groff architecture and
the
Hello Bertrand!
> In order to understand the overall groff architecture and the
> various binaries and tools, I first studied the current build system
> and started to migrate it to automake.
Great!
> I know this is not the priority and that even some persons in the
> mailing list would dislik
13 matches
Mail list logo
