Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2001-01-25 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
Hi! Attached is the patch for RELENG_4. It works but I don't like how it pollutes the Makefile.inc1. Anyone with a better idea? On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 09:43:55AM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Let me rephrase the question: Did you modify the manpages to get it

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2001-01-25 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
[I don't know why -current is CC'd this is clearly about -stable] Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Attached is the patch for RELENG_4. It works but I don't like how it pollutes the Makefile.inc1. Anyone with a better idea? Allow me to sidetrack for a moment: I just ugraded a machine from 4.1 to

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-12 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 09:07:53AM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:29:54PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:22:09PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote:

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-12 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 09:12:17AM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote: It appers that running mtree(1) with -U under non-root account works OK, i.e. it creates all missing directories, and exits with status of zero. I believe it also emits warnings, right? What if

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-12 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
Ruslan Ermilov wrote: Let me rephrase the question: Did you modify the manpages to get it to work with the new groff(1) or is the new groff(1) backward compatible with the old groff(1)? The new groff(1) is not always backwards compatible. Ok, thanks. That's all I wanted to hear. OK,

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-12 Thread David O'Brien
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:23:44AM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: OK, I will augment the USRDIRS then, add the groff to bootstrap-tools, and leave the better (if one exists) implementation to someone else. Why does groff need to be a bootstrap-tool? Its not like we need to build manpages that

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-12 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
David O'Brien wrote: On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:23:44AM +0200, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: OK, I will augment the USRDIRS then, add the groff to bootstrap-tools, and leave the better (if one exists) implementation to someone else. Why does groff need to be a bootstrap-tool? Its not like we

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-12 Thread Daniel C. Sobral
Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Why does groff need to be a bootstrap-tool? Its not like we need to build manpages that early in the build. There's no other place. Only bootstrap tools, cross tools and build tools are build in such a way that they can run on the build machine. You can't build

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-12 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote: There's no other place. Only bootstrap tools, cross tools and build tools are build in such a way that they can run on the build machine. You can't build it later than cross-tools. It's not a cross tool itself and definitely not a build tool. It must be a

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-11 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:29:54PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:22:09PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote: The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping problem with groff(1). Sorry,

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-11 Thread Bruce Evans
On 10 Dec 2000, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: Marcel Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: According to the manpage, if you remove -U it doesn't create new directories or symlinks. At least that's how I interpret it. You interpret it wrong. -U just tells mtree to fix permissions. The

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-11 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:43:24PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:17:52PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote: The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping problem with groff(1). I have

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-11 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 10:11:28PM -0800, Thomas D. Dean wrote: I have no environment settings that relate to groff and only MANPATH that relates to man. There are no local modifications. etc/make.conf only has CFLAGS= -O -pipe HAVE_MOTIF= yes MOTIF_STATIC= yes USA_RESIDENT=

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-11 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:29:54PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:22:09PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote: The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-11 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
Ruslan Ermilov wrote: It appers that running mtree(1) with -U under non-root account works OK, i.e. it creates all missing directories, and exits with status of zero. I believe it also emits warnings, right? What if we create the mtree(1)-compatible BSD.world.dist? The below was generated

Re: using mtree in our builds [was: Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)]

2000-12-10 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
David O'Brien wrote: On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:59:46PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: The only thing you don't like about mtree is it changing ownership + modes, right? Not only that. Using mtree(1) creates busloads of unnecessary directories. But they're harmless. While I

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-10 Thread Dag-Erling Smorgrav
Marcel Moolenaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: According to the manpage, if you remove -U it doesn't create new directories or symlinks. At least that's how I interpret it. You interpret it wrong. -U just tells mtree to fix permissions. The canonical way to use the mtree files in /etc/mtree is

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-09 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:17:52PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote: The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping problem with groff(1). I have lightly tested this on my -stable box, and would appreciate a feedback on them. Do not remove the

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-09 Thread Ruslan Ermilov
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:22:09PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote: The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping problem with groff(1). Sorry, I missed this statement before. What exactly are the bootstrapping problems you're seeing? New

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-09 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
Ruslan Ermilov wrote: On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 06:22:09PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: Ruslan Ermilov wrote: The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping problem with groff(1). Sorry, I missed this statement before. What exactly are the bootstrapping

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-09 Thread Thomas D. Dean
Is this the problem I see with mal-formatted man pages? The pages appear as 1 block with no headers, tities, etc. tomdean To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-09 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
"Thomas D. Dean" wrote: Is this the problem I see with mal-formatted man pages? Possibly. I don't know if we changed files to get our sources working with the new groff(1). If we did, we definitely have a bootstrapping problem, because that would mean that we can't reliably create manpages

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-09 Thread Thomas D. Dean
# ls /usr/share/man/man*/zzz* /usr/share/man/man8/zzz.8.gz # ls /usr/share/man/cat*/zzz* ls: No match. Ok, so, man zzz should reformat the man page. I have attached the output of 'man -d zzz' and 'man zzz' After 'man zzz', I see # ls /usr/share/man/cat*/zzz* /usr/share/man/cat8/zzz.8.gz So,

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-09 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
"Thomas D. Dean" wrote: trying command: (cd /usr/share/man ; /usr/bin/zcat /usr/share/man/man8/zzz.8.gz | /usr/bin/tbl | /usr/bin/groff -S -Wall -mtty-char -man -Tascii | ... should be -mandoc trying

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-09 Thread Thomas D. Dean
/usr/bin/groff -S -Wall -mtty-char -man -Tascii | ... should be -mandoc This was generated by 'man', not me. There appears to be a problem in man. tomdean To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-09 Thread David O'Brien
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:43:24PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: On the other hand, I also don't want to use mtree. The only thing you don't like about mtree is it changing ownership + modes, right? If so, what about a new flag to mtree to make it only create directories and nothing else?

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-09 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
David O'Brien wrote: On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 12:43:24PM -0800, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: On the other hand, I also don't want to use mtree. The only thing you don't like about mtree is it changing ownership + modes, right? Not only that. Using mtree(1) creates busloads of unnecessary

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-09 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
"Thomas D. Dean" wrote: /usr/bin/groff -S -Wall -mtty-char -man -Tascii | ... should be -mandoc This was generated by 'man', not me. I understand that. There appears to be a problem in man. Not

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-09 Thread Thomas D. Dean
I have no environment settings that relate to groff and only MANPATH that relates to man. There are no local modifications. etc/make.conf only has CFLAGS= -O -pipe HAVE_MOTIF= yes MOTIF_STATIC= yes USA_RESIDENT= YES WRKDIRPREFIX= /usr/obj/ports NO_MODULES= NO I have always

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-09 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
"Thomas D. Dean" wrote: # cd /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin # make clean # cd /usr/src # make -DNOCLEAN world fixed the problem. Before, I used 'make -j36 -DNOCLEAN world'. Could it be a problem with the Makefile in man? -DNOCLEAN is not guaranteed to work. Especially when makefiles change.

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-08 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
Ruslan Ermilov wrote: The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping problem with groff(1). I have lightly tested this on my -stable box, and would appreciate a feedback on them. Do not remove the USRDIRS and INCDIRS and replace it with mtree (ie make hierarchy). There's

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-08 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
Ruslan Ermilov wrote: The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping problem with groff(1). Sorry, I missed this statement before. What exactly are the bootstrapping problems you're seeing? -- Marcel Moolenaar mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel: (408)

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-08 Thread Matt Dillon
:Ruslan Ermilov wrote: : : The attached patches (p4 and p5) try to solve this bootstrapping : problem with groff(1). : :Sorry, I missed this statement before. What exactly are the :bootstrapping problems you're seeing? : :-- :Marcel Moolenaar : mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] :

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-08 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
Matt Dillon wrote: /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/groff# make === libgroff === libdriver === libbib === addftinfo === afmtodit === doc === eqn c++ -O -pipe -DHAVE_UNISTD_H=1 -DHAVE_DIRENT_H=1 -DHAVE_LIMITS_H=1 -DHAVE_STDLIB_H=1 -DHAVE_STRING_H=1 -DHAVE_STRINGS_H=1 -DHAVE_MATH_H=1

Re: Bootstrapping issues with groff(1)

2000-12-08 Thread assar
Matt Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: c++ -O -pipe -DHAVE_UNISTD_H=1 -DHAVE_DIRENT_H=1 -DHAVE_LIMITS_H=1 -DHAVE_STDLIB_H=1 -DHAVE_STRING_H=1 -DHAVE_STRINGS_H=1 -DHAVE_MATH_H=1 -DRET_TYPE_SRAND_IS_VOID=1 -DHAVE_SYS_NERR=1 -DHAVE_SYS_ERRLIST=1 -DHAVE_CC_LIMITS_H=1 -DRETSIGTYPE=void