Follow-up Comment #7, bug #67207 (group groff): Hi Deri,
Quick reply as I expect to be tied up most of today.
At 2025-06-15T09:26:13-0400, Deri James wrote:
> Follow-up Comment #6, bug #67207 (group groff):
> I have a problem with your "diffy". I tested it by running this command (to
> produce a Japanese man page):-
>
> [derij@pip build (master)]$ test-groff -Tpdf -man -fG -petk -F
> /usr/share/groff/site-font/ -mja groff.7 |okular -
>
> In the download file in that directory:-
>
> SauceHanSansJP-B
> /usr/share/groff/site-font/devps/SauceHanSansJP-B.pfb
> SauceHanSansJP-BI
> /usr/share/groff/site-font/devps/SauceHanSansJP-BI.pfb
> SauceHanSansJP-BV
> /usr/share/groff/site-font/devps/SauceHanSansJP-BV.pfb
> SauceHanSansJP-I
> /usr/share/groff/site-font/devps/SauceHanSansJP-I.pfb
> SauceHanSansJP-R
> /usr/share/groff/sitefont/devps/SauceHanSansJP-R.pfb
> SauceHanSansJP-V
> /usr/share/groff/site-font/devps/SauceHanSansJP-V.pfb
>
> I introduced a typo in the entry for "SauceHanSansJP-R" (missing
> hyphen in the filename).
That's a good test scenario.
> When I ran with the current gropdf I get:-
>
> [derij@pip build (master)]$ groff -Tpdf -man -fG -petk -F
> /usr/share/groff/site-font/ -mja groff.7 |okular -
> gropdf: warning: The download file in '/usr/share/groff/site-font/devpdf'
> has
> erroneous entry for 'SauceHanSansJP-R (GR)'
> troff:groff.7:1084: warning: special character 'u3002' not defined
>
> But if I run with the diff applied, I get:-
>
> [derij@pip build (master)]$ test-groff -Tpdf -man -fG -petk -F
> /usr/share/groff/site-font/ -mja groff.7 |okular -
> troff:groff.7:1084: warning: special character 'u3002' not defined
>
> No message about the problem entry.
Hmm, yes.
> I realise your code is more complex than the original,
Not for its own sake. I didn't touch BuildFoundries.pl or gropdf.pl
until I had to.
> but I don't quite understand what you are trying to "improve".
After making the two changes at the end of the diff, the 1/2 and 2/2 to
close the "SS" support ticket, I ran into land mine after land mine when
doing a build. As I recall (this has been a days' long process), a few
occurred with a conventional in-tree build, but what really went to hell
was "make distcheck". If you apply just those 2 patches and then try
that yourself, I feel sure you'll hit most or all of the problems I did.
Some very odd things went wrong, but right now I don't have time to
elaborate or recreate the numerous failures I encountered.
For the most part, the problems weren't thrown where they actually
happened, at the appropriate place to catch them. As with your example
of the misspelled name, they showed up only later.
So the scenario you raise is one I'd like to restore good support for in
a revision of my patch/commit series. I've been focused on having a
working build from a "good" source tree, which ideally isn't going to
feature typos in "download" files.
> To my mind the original message identifies the exact download file the
> exact entry which caused the issue and the groff font name affected
> (GR). I don't need to know which other download files I have read
> before finding the problem, since that information is superfluous to
> fixing the issue. Please can you explain your thinking behind adding
> the complexity in your code.
See above. Again, I think helpful diagnosis of your typo scenario is
important to have, so I'll have to refactor to catch it. If we can
think of an easy way to introduce a regression test for that, I'd be
eager to incorporate it. (And maybe worth "porting" to grops as well.)
> Apologies if I'm barking up the wrong tree, but I do consider a typo
> in the filename to be worthy of a warning.
Me too.
> Perhaps if you explained what you were trying to achieve I can knock
> up some code for gropdf.
My goal is: "make distcheck" works, which necessarily implies that all
tests pass (or "XFAIL") when building in the checked-out tree _and_ in
an arbitrary directory into which the distribution archive is unpacked.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?67207>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
