[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:28:24 +0200

> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:00:04 +0000
> From: Gavin Smith <address@hidden>
> Cc: Karl Berry <address@hidden>, Texinfo <address@hidden>
> > Here's my full output:
> >
> >      $ ./t/dir-file-sloppily.sh && echo OK
> >      info: "./t/Infokey-config", line 2: unknown action `xxx-not-recognized'
> >      info: "./t/Infokey-config", line 3: cannot bind key sequence to 
> > menu-digit
> >      info: adding ./t/infodir to INFOPATH
> >      info: looking for file "FiLe-M"
> >      info: looking for file FiLe-M in ./t/infodir
> >      info: falling back to manpage node
> >      info: No menu item 'FiLe-M' in node '(dir)Top'.
> >      info: writing node (*manpages*)FiLe-M...
> >      info: closing -
> >
> It may think it has successfully found a man page. If you run "./ginfo
> FiLe-M" does it display anything?

Yes, it shows this:

     File: *manpages*,  Node: FiLe-M,  Up: (dir)

     No manual entry for FiLe-M.

I think you are right about the man page.  I can get the same result
as the test expects with this little change:

--- info/man.c~ 2014-12-30 23:54:02 +0200
+++ info/man.c  2015-02-25 08:51:11 +0200
@@ -387,7 +387,7 @@ get_manpage_from_formatter (char *format
     if (fpipe == 0)
       return NULL;
     formatted_page = read_from_fd (fileno (fpipe));
-    if (pclose (fpipe) == -1)
+    if (pclose (fpipe) != 0)
        if (formatted_page)
          free (formatted_page);

However, I don't see why the HAVE_FORK branch should behave
differently: it doesn't check the exit status of 'man', AFAICS, just
that the text it returned is non-empty.  And the Unix 'man' also says
"No manual entry for FiLe-M" in this case.

Is this perhaps an issue with stdout vs stderr?  The version of 'man'
I use outputs this message to stdout.  If this is the reason for the
difference in behavior, then how about adding to the HAVE_FORK branch
a test of the exit status?  Then having that in the popen branch will
be justified.

reply via email to

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