On 13-04-20 03:03 PM, Dan Nicholson wrote: > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Gaetan Nadon <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 13-04-20 01:08 PM, Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>> Check for groff never got translated from imake to autoconf >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Alan Coopersmith <[email protected]> >>> --- >>> configure.ac | 5 +++++ >>> defs.h | 4 ++++ >>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac >>> index 74a6fc8..b9920bd 100644 >>> --- a/configure.ac >>> +++ b/configure.ac >>> @@ -37,6 +37,11 @@ AC_CONFIG_HEADERS([config.h]) >>> >>> AC_CANONICAL_HOST >>> >>> +AC_CHECK_PROG([GROFF], [groff], [found], [missing]) >>> +if test "x$GROFF" = "xfound" ; then >>> + AC_DEFINE([HAS_GROFF], 1, [Define to 1 if you have the groff package.]) >>> +fi >>> + >>> AC_CHECK_FUNCS([mkstemp]) >>> >>> AC_ARG_WITH(helpdir, >>> diff --git a/defs.h b/defs.h >>> index b4cd434..fe09b6b 100644 >>> --- a/defs.h >>> +++ b/defs.h >>> @@ -34,6 +34,10 @@ from the X Consortium. >>> * Created: October 22, 1987 >>> */ >>> >>> +#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H >>> +# include "config.h" >>> +#endif >>> + >>> #ifndef HELPFILE >>> #define HELPFILE "/usr/lib/X11/xman.help" /* name of the default >>> helpfile. */ >>> #endif >> Alternatively, you can use XORG_WITH_GROFF macro and benefit from all >> the features. This was used in many docs before the move to DocBook. In >> any case you probably want to use HAVE_xx to follow the convention used >> by Automake elsewhere. > That's a good point, but the "usage" of groff is different in this > case. groff isn't being used to generate any documentation, it's > simply being used to detect if xman should use groff features in it's > output. Alan's patch simply uses the existence of groff on the system > to decide whether to build the groff features into xman or not. So, > the macro would check for a lot of things not actually used. On the > other hand, you'd get a --with-groff for free to give the user full > control of whether to use groff or not... I suspected it would be overkill. I am ok either way.
Thanks! > > -- > Dan > _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
