Re: [Groff] Re: a couple of fixes to html.cc

[Werner LEMBERG]

[About naming GNU troff `gtroff' or `troff']

> > Anybody on the list who has suggestions how to improve this?  I
> > mean the inconsistency, not the automatic process of checking the
> > `g' prefix (which can be changed rather easily using the
> > AC_ARG_PROGRAM autoconf function).  My idea is to always use `g'.
> 
> I wonder whether the rule for installing binaries should be to
> install components as geqn, gtbl, g..  etc.  Only place symbolic
> links from their non g counterparts if "troff" already exists?  If
> we really need the old names?
> 
> This way the g named components will appear the same as previous
> releases.  On another point if the install directory has changed --
> should the install warn that another groff is elsewhere?  I had this
> for a time on my RH-5.2 where /usr/bin/groff was the old copy and
> /usr/local/bin/groff is where the new copy went.

What do you think about the following algorithm:

  0) The groff package will always use the `g' prefix.

  1) Check whether a binary called `troff' is installed.  If yes, set
     HAVE_TROFF.  Now check whether it is GNU troff.  If yes, set
     HAVE_GTROFF_AS_TROFF.

  2) Check whether a binary called `gtroff' is installed.  If yes
     check whether the installation directories are the same.  If not,
     emit a warning that another groff package is on the system which
     can cause conflicts.  [Shall `make install' abort in this
     situation?]

  3) Install groff.  Make a link gtroff->troff only if HAVE_TROFF
     isn't set.  If HAVE_GTROFF_AS_TROFF is set, remove the old link
     and use the old link's directory for the new link.  Do the same
     for geqn, gtbl, etc.

Are there any GNU guidelines covering such tricky situations?


   Werner