https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122638
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> --- > --- Comment #1 from Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com> --- > I suggest moving to a newer minimum version of makeinfo. fine with me, that why I've raised this before continuing with the patch. > For reference, here the last decades of releases: > > 6.0 September 26, 2013 > 5.2 March 12, 2013 > 5.1 February 16, 2013 > 5.0 October 20, 2010 Major Change: The C-based makeinfo was > replaced > by the Perl-based texi2any utility. > 4.13 September 22, 2008 > 4.12 May 2, 2008 > 4.11 July 20, 2007 > 4.10 February 18, 2007 > 4.9 June 29, 2006 > 4.8 January 3, 2005 > 4.7 April 10, 2004 > > 5.0 is 15 years old, which does not strike me as unreasonable. > > What would be your recommendation? (Also, happy to raise a proposal > on the gcc@ list.) Given that trunk only supports Solaris 11.4, which bundles makeinfo 7.1, everything above is fine. If one really wanted to support Solaris 11.3 (irrelevant for trunk, but might be an issue if such a patch were backported to the gcc-14 branch), one would need to allow for 4.13 which probably doesn't help compared to the current 4.7. macOS is a different beast, though: 10.13 and 12 both have ancient 4.8 bundled, while 26 apparently doesn't bundle makeinfo any longer. Given that, I'd suggest 5.0 is fine since one has to build your own anyway. It's Iain's call in the end. IIRC the makeinfo step is skipped if there's no makeinfo present. Maybe we should check for a matching version somewhere instead of relying on install.texi alone? So for me, 5.0 would be perfectly fine and quite reasonable.
