Follow-up Comment #3, bug #67390 (group groff): On Monday, 4 August 2025 00:34:02 BST you wrote: > Follow-up Comment #2, bug #67390 (group groff): > > At 2025-08-03T08:19:31-0400, Deri James wrote: >> Follow-up Comment #1: >> >> Your patch has been committed:- > > Cool, thanks! > >> I have left this report open requiring further information, because it >> sounds like there is a further serious problem. Since the total >> run-time is about a second, I don't understand at what point you were >> hammering ctrl-c, was afmtodit looping? > > No. I was doing a build on a relatively slow ARM-based tablet. > > To reproduce the problem on my x86-64 daily driver, I added a > `sleep(1);` at the top of the `while (<AFM>)` loop in "afmtodit.pl".
I thought of that as well. :-)
Your patch saves a few milli-seconds on my server, I should think most
packagers have build farm machines faster than mine.
>> Did BuildFoundries not exit 2 if afmtodit exited with a non-zero
>> status?
>
> It did. But on that tablet, it took a while (several seconds) to get
> there.
Phew! Thought you meant the code was not working. By "too bullish again,
ignoring signals" you actually meant you did not want to wait "a few seconds"
for it to act on the signal on an incredibly slow machine. Perhaps you could
amend the bug title to something more appropriate. It must take minutes to do
a full make clean; configure; make; make check; make distcheck - I feel for
you.
>> Because you have not given sufficient information I have not been able
>> to test your patch.
>
> It's working fine for me. I've now found that there are two sources of
> duplication warning. The second, I'm not inclined to expose to
> `$opt_q`, because I think the real cause is the character mapping table
> internal to _groff_ and which we inline into the generated `afmtodit`
> script.
>
> Specifically, we get duplicates between the following pairs of
> PostScript glyph names:
>
> * "Delta" and "uni0394" (capital delta)
> * "mu" and "uni03BC" (lowercase mu)
> * "uni03A9" and "uni2126" (capital ohm)
>
> ...but all of these are matters for bug #67244. On which I'm waiting
> for feedback from you, incidentally, but I think I can proceed with
> revising _libgroff_'s "uniglyph" table and similar in the meantime.
>
I shall reply over there, probably toomorrow.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/?67390>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.nongnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
