https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122638
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to [email protected] from comment #15) > > --- Comment #14 from Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com> --- > > (In reply to [email protected] from comment #13) > >> My primary point is that right now you're worse off if you have a > >> version of makeinfo too old to build current docs than without makeinfo > >> at all. When it's acceptable not to build info docs when makeinfo is > >> missing completely, it should just be as acceptable not to build them > >> whenever it's considered too old. > > > > I agree. > > > > Let's go for that. Would you like to propose a patch? > > I'd rather leave this to Eric: he's already digged out the necessary > autoconf support to do so, and I've got too much on my plate already. Well, I guess if it's up to me, I'll probably bump the minimum to makeinfo 5, as was originally suggested, as that would be easier than adding support for detecting the "minor" portion of the version number... my fork of the repository is in a really messed-up state, though; I might need some help adjusting things to a point where I can be able to commit again...
