Follow-up Comment #11, bug #62551 (project groff): Hi Deri!
[comment #10 comment #10:] > Is it true that previously you didn't need a full TeX installation to build groff from git, it just did not build groff.pdf as part of the process. Yes, that's correct. > Now it seems the build borks very early on if tex2dvi is not found, so you have to have the majority of TeX installed (it's very big!) to get a runniable groff. Is this change intentional/desirable? Intentional, yes. Desirable...well, maybe not. Ingo and I have done a ton of work on the build system over the past couple of months, to simplify it and reduce the number of build scenarios that need to be tested. This one was probably the main commit in question. commit 3805d2a0e4aebb84d896f86285fd565488e849bb Author: Ingo Schwarze <[email protected]> Date: Tue Apr 12 14:36:12 2022 +0200 [configure] Delete the --with-doc option. This option was harmful, ill-designed, buggy, and essentially unmaintained and untested. For more details on the rationale, see the NEWS file. OK gbranden@ and no objection when shown on groff at gnu dot org. I'm not exactly happy with adding a build-dep on TeX for Git users. But some big dividends have been paid for the build-from-distribution-archive scenario, which I (and I think Ingo) regard as more important for getting a release out on the door. That said, I've spent enough time on the build system over the past 2 months that I am confident that I understand how to make the build skip generation of groff.{dvi,pdf} if TeX is not installed. That would involve less machinery than the erstwhile '--with-doc' option. > Sorry, probably not the right place to ask this question. It's fine! But you might want to raise it on groff@gnu for further discussion. If you do, I expect the notion of getting rid of our Texinfo manual, or converting it to a groff input document, will be mooted. I would oppose the former--there's too much good information in it that isn't suitable for man pages to just throw it away. For the latter, there is the semi-automated(?) conversion work you have shared more than once, but I admit I haven't taken a look at it recently. :( I have no good reason for that apart from simply "not having enough spoons", as the saying goes. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?62551> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
