Re: [Groff] Re: grohtml utility programs in DESC?

[Keith Marshall]

On Tuesday 18 November 2003 12:39 pm, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > IMHO, the better option is to collect copies of all the required
> > binaries together, in a common directory, and add that one directory
> > to the PATH.  Of course, it does make sense to preserve the original
> > name, when creating the copy; I simply chose to rename gswin32c.exe
> > as gs.exe for its copy on my MSYS path, since that worked without
> > any need to modify the name which grohtml would search for, and thus
> > seemed to me to be the simplest solution to the naming conflict; (I
> > am a strong advocate of the KISS principle!)
>
> If I used Windows, I would do the same, but still using gswin32c.exe
> as the executable name.
>
> > I don't disagree with this, Werner; I just believe that renaming
> > gswin32c.exe is a simpler option.  Also, if we modify grohtml to
> > expect gswin32c.exe, should we also have a fall back option to try
> > gs.exe, if gswin32c.exe is not found?
>
> This is adding exactly 7 characters to configure.ac :-) I think this
> is probably the a good compromise.
>
>
>     Werner

Ok, I will buy this as a good compromise.  Presumably, when the platform is 
Windows, your idea is to have configure look first for gswin32c.exe, and then 
for gs.exe, only if gswin32c.exe is not found;  configure would then arrange 
for the appropriate definition to be placed in the DESC file?

One further concern could be that a binary package built on one machine may 
not relocate to another;  (Windows users tend to favour this form of package 
distribution).  However, I guess that is a separate issue, which we can leave 
for any package builder to resolve for himself.

Since you have volunteered to tackle the implementation, Gaius, I will leave 
the details to your discretion.  Please feel free to contact me, if you would 
like my assistance in any way.

Best regards,
Keith.