[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bug #62551] [PATCH] doc/groff.texi: Fix content and style nits

From: G. Branden Robinson
Subject: [bug #62551] [PATCH] doc/groff.texi: Fix content and style nits
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2022 12:19:14 -0400 (EDT)

Follow-up Comment #11, bug #62551 (project groff):

Hi Deri!

[comment #10 comment #10:]
> Is it true that previously you didn't need a full TeX installation to build
groff from git, it just did not build groff.pdf as part of the process.

Yes, that's correct.

> Now it seems the build borks very early on if tex2dvi is not found, so you
have to have the majority of TeX installed (it's very big!) to get a runniable
groff. Is this change intentional/desirable?

Intentional, yes.  Desirable...well, maybe not.

Ingo and I have done a ton of work on the build system over the past couple of
months, to simplify it and reduce the number of build scenarios that need to
be tested.  This one was probably the main commit in question.

commit 3805d2a0e4aebb84d896f86285fd565488e849bb
Author: Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@openbsd.org>
Date:   Tue Apr 12 14:36:12 2022 +0200

    [configure] Delete the --with-doc option.
    This option was harmful, ill-designed, buggy, and essentially
    unmaintained and untested.  For more details on the rationale,
    see the NEWS file.
    OK gbranden@ and no objection when shown on groff at gnu dot org.

I'm not exactly happy with adding a build-dep on TeX for Git users.  But some
big dividends have been paid for the build-from-distribution-archive scenario,
which I (and I think Ingo) regard as more important for getting a release out
on the door.

That said, I've spent enough time on the build system over the past 2 months
that I am confident that I understand how to make the build skip generation of
groff.{dvi,pdf} if TeX is not installed.  That would involve less machinery
than the erstwhile '--with-doc' option.

> Sorry, probably not the right place to ask this question.

It's fine!  But you might want to raise it on groff@gnu for further

If you do, I expect the notion of getting rid of our Texinfo manual, or
converting it to a groff input document, will be mooted.  I would oppose the
former--there's too much good information in it that isn't suitable for man
pages to just throw it away.

For the latter, there is the semi-automated(?) conversion work you have shared
more than once, but I admit I haven't taken a look at it recently.  :(  I have
no good reason for that apart from simply "not having enough spoons", as the
saying goes.


Reply to this item at:


Message sent via Savannah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]