[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available |
Date: |
Wed, 25 Feb 2015 18:28:24 +0200 |
> Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:00:04 +0000
> From: Gavin Smith <address@hidden>
> Cc: Karl Berry <address@hidden>, Texinfo <address@hidden>
>
> > Here's my full output:
> >
> > $ ./t/dir-file-sloppily.sh && echo OK
> > info: "./t/Infokey-config", line 2: unknown action `xxx-not-recognized'
> > info: "./t/Infokey-config", line 3: cannot bind key sequence to
> > menu-digit
> > info: adding ./t/infodir to INFOPATH
> > info: looking for file "FiLe-M"
> > info: looking for file FiLe-M in ./t/infodir
> > info: falling back to manpage node
> > info: No menu item 'FiLe-M' in node '(dir)Top'.
> > info: writing node (*manpages*)FiLe-M...
> > info: closing -
> >
>
> It may think it has successfully found a man page. If you run "./ginfo
> FiLe-M" does it display anything?
Yes, it shows this:
File: *manpages*, Node: FiLe-M, Up: (dir)
No manual entry for FiLe-M.
I think you are right about the man page. I can get the same result
as the test expects with this little change:
--- info/man.c~ 2014-12-30 23:54:02 +0200
+++ info/man.c 2015-02-25 08:51:11 +0200
@@ -387,7 +387,7 @@ get_manpage_from_formatter (char *format
if (fpipe == 0)
return NULL;
formatted_page = read_from_fd (fileno (fpipe));
- if (pclose (fpipe) == -1)
+ if (pclose (fpipe) != 0)
{
if (formatted_page)
free (formatted_page);
However, I don't see why the HAVE_FORK branch should behave
differently: it doesn't check the exit status of 'man', AFAICS, just
that the text it returned is non-empty. And the Unix 'man' also says
"No manual entry for FiLe-M" in this case.
Is this perhaps an issue with stdout vs stderr? The version of 'man'
I use outputs this message to stdout. If this is the reason for the
difference in behavior, then how about adding to the HAVE_FORK branch
a test of the exit status? Then having that in the popen branch will
be justified.
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, (continued)
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Gavin Smith, 2015/02/26
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/27
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Ken Brown, 2015/02/27
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Gavin Smith, 2015/02/27
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/27
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Ken Brown, 2015/02/27
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/27
Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Gavin Smith, 2015/02/24
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/24
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Gavin Smith, 2015/02/24
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Gavin Smith, 2015/02/25
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/25
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Gavin Smith, 2015/02/26
- Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/02/26
Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Gavin Smith, 2015/02/24
Re: texinfo-5.9.90 pretest available, Gavin Smith, 2015/02/24