octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: building the manual fails with Texinfo 6


From: Mike Miller
Subject: Re: building the manual fails with Texinfo 6
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 01:55:56 -0400
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 08:54:31 -0700, Rik wrote:
> Always a good thing to fix unescaped backslashes.  Once we are certain that
> there are no installations with Texinfo < 5.0 we can also upgrade the
> @xbackslashchar macro to just @backslashchar.

I fixed the instances that broke the build with Texinfo 6:

http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/2ec049e50ed8

> On 07/08/2015 08:13 AM, address@hidden wrote:
> > Why do we distribute our own texinfo.tex file? Was this to ensure that a
> > new enough version of the macros were present even if users had an
> > ancient automake or texinfo distribution once upon a time? A newer
> > up-to-date version of texinfo.tex is already injected into our build-aux
> > directory by gnulib and we could easily use that file instead to fix the
> > first problem.
> 
> I believe this was the reason.  In general, we didn't want to force users
> to have a full Texinfo installation.  Of course, we also distribute the
> full documentation in the tarball just so that they can run configure;
> make; make install without hassle.  So the only people really affected are
> developers starting from source or packagers for a Linux distro.  I suppose
> these people could be deemed savvy enough to install all the required
> dependencies.

Deleted our outdated copy of texinfo.tex, now builds with Texinfo 6
using the one in build-aux from gnulib:

http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/45d7be391982

> > Norbert also recommended deleting our distributed texmf.cnf, which only
> > exists to set save_size to 10000. The current texmf.cnf on my Debian
> > system sets save_size to 50000, does anyone remember which distros still
> > suffer from a default save_size that is too small to build the manual,
> > is this still relevant? RHEL 5 has save_size = 5000 for example, I
> > haven't tested whether this is too low.
> 
> The trouble is that then we would have to check against all possible
> distributions, whereas if we just set it to a known good value then it will
> be portable regardless of which weird OS (RHEL, Solaris, etc.) we come
> across.  But again, this is a concern only for people building directly
> from source code rather than a tarball.

Yep, I'm leaving this one alone for now.

-- 
mike



reply via email to

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