[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Groff] CVS Build Problem

From: Keith Marshall
Subject: Re: [Groff] CVS Build Problem
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 05:17:18 +0100

On Thursday 05 May 2005 10:24 am, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > And thanks again, for this.  Unless there are any objections from
> > others, I'll investigate a solution based on option 4.
> I agree.  What the autoconf people use we can use also.

But the truly autoconf compatible option would be my original number 3; 
option 4 is a compromise, using a shell function to avoid multiple 
repetitions of a largish block of almost identical commands, implementing a 
pair of nested for loops, to perform a path search for each required command.
Autoconf documentation advises against using shell functions, on portability 

Should I rather use option 3, making `' bigger, and therefore 
slower to execute -- it's noticeably slower on my Win32 box than it is on my 
Linux box, even though the Win32 box has a processor running at 3 times the 
clock speed of the Linux box, and the IDE subsystems are of comparable spec. 
-- or should I stick with the compromise of option 4, and use the shell 
function, in the expectation that it will be "portable enough"?

Attached is a small script, demonstrating a possible `searchpath' shell 
function.  Do any users have problems running it?  Run as described at the 
top of the script -- (don't forget to `gunzip' and `chmod +x' it first).

Within the execution trace, you should see (somewhere):


with fallback assignments to ':', if either is not found.  It should honour 
optional assignments for GROFF_BIN_DIR, and then GROFF_BIN_PATH, in the 
search for `groff'.  Win32 users may need SEP=';', for any shell which uses 
native Win32 semantics for PATH; (I'll have `configure' resolve this 
requirement, when integrating into `pdfroff').

Thanks for any assistance with testing.

Best regards,

reply via email to

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