[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Groff] Tiny make patch: avoid Netpbm dependency

From: Steffen Nurpmeso
Subject: Re: [Groff] Tiny make patch: avoid Netpbm dependency
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:37:11 +0100
User-agent: s-nail v14.6.2-9-gc4e43ca

Hello Ingo,

Ingo Schwarze <address@hidden> wrote:
 |Steffen Nurpmeso wrote on Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 08:59:29PM +0100:
 |> Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
 |>> Instead, you might contribute a patch to implement a
 |>> `--without-doc' configure switch that completely disables the
 |>> generation of documentation files. :-)
 |Really?  Why would somebody ever want to build a piece of software
 |without the documentation belonging to it?  Documentation is an
 |integral part of software, and without the proper documentation,
 |almost any software is next to useless.
 |That said, wouldn't such an option further bloat the groff build
 |system, for no gain at all?  If we are touching the build system,
 |i'd recommend to simplify it, possibly *removing* useless options
 |and complications, but not adding yet more complications...

I don't think that the options are the actual problem, but merely
the build system itself.  Just look at some Makefile.sub and and their duplicated content.  Not that i understand
that at all -- i really have to be in disliked `patch-mode' for
this (i.e.: does it what i want?  anything still works?  done.).

 |> Really?  Hm, i'll give that a try in the upcoming days and report
 |> back.
 |What?  Why would you waste your time on that?  What's the gain?

For me it is definetely a positive thing to have.
Also, i always disliked HTML for manuals a lot; it is possibly
what i dislike on NetBSD the most, that there are HTML versions of
manuals.  (I mean, it is not that they are linked in between each
other, with TOCs and indices and links for functions and
variables, not even if in the same single manual page, even though
that would be possible with at least mdoc(7).)
It never hit me before with groff, because HTML wouldn't be
produced due to lack of tools -- next time that will most likely
not be the case.

 |I am confused.

Having the option to suppress explicitly what otherwise would
maximally be suppressed implicitly due to lack of tools is
definitively a step forward -- not that i think humans are really
capable of democracy, but that would surely direct to more freedom
of choice.

 |  Ingo


reply via email to

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