[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Groff] Re: a couple of fixes to

From: Gaius Mulley
Subject: Re: [Groff] Re: a couple of fixes to
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 99 13:02 GMT

> Gaius, the next thing you will see in the CVS (as soon as it is
> running again) is the whole file you've sent to me.  Please
> check it again -- if it is OK, I will release the groff package.

I'll email later on today as I've left my groff development code
at home.

> BTW, in case you send patches please update your copy of the ChangeLog
> file from the CVS also -- I sometimes edit it slightly.

oops yes I'll update mine, sorry

>> Hopefully this is one advantage of being 5 hrs ahead
>> of the USA? :-). The diff is against the repositary 8:45am GMT.

> No chance -- I'm sitting in Dortmund, Germany :-)


> Anybody on the list who has suggestions how to improve this?  I mean
> the inconsistency, not the automatic process of checking the `g'
> prefix (which can be changed rather easily using the AC_ARG_PROGRAM
> autoconf function).  My idea is to always use `g'.

I wonder whether the rule for installing binaries should be to
install components as geqn, gtbl, g..   etc
Only place symbolic links from their non g counterparts
if "troff" already exists? If we really need the old names?

This way the g named components will appear the same as previous
releases. On another point if the install directory has changed -
should the install warn that another groff is elsewhere.
I had this for a time on my RH-5.2 where /usr/bin/groff was the
old copy and /usr/local/bin/groff is where the new copy went.

My slight worry is that people could get bitten by two copies lying
around in different directories.

Or am I completely off base?

cheers Gaius

reply via email to

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