[Groff] Re: Problem with grohtml on Win32

[Gaius Mulley]

Keith MARSHALL <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi Gaius,
> 
> >> What do you think?
> >
> > my thoughts are that I think keeping the image generator in DESC is
> > valid given that there is a choice of image generator (or at least
> > choice of name). [...]
> 
> Ok.  The only issue I have with this is that the name stored in DESC
> is applicable *only* for the build host -- if the runtime host is not
> the same, and uses a different name for the ghostscript executable,
> then the name stored in DESC is potentially misleading.

Hi Keith,

so, what to do about this.. hmm. We could either force cross
compilation to use your --with-gs=PROG switch and retain this
value in DESC or remove it all together from DESC and ..

> Provided pre-grohtml tries *all* well known names for the image
> generator at *runtime*, then the appearance of the configured name in
> DESC will not cause any real problem, but what value does it have?

try all well known names at runtime - as you say. Maybe the --with-gs
value could be prepended to this well known list.. perhaps the
--with-gs could itself be a list of preferred gs names..

Which solution do you favour? Are there better alternatives?

Thanks,
Gaius