Re: [Groff] Automake migration proposal

[Vaibhaw Pandey]

OS X report:

Dale Snell wrote:

>You appear to be missing the netpbm package.  This was discussed
>on the list a while back.  Netpbm is needed for the initial build
>of Groff.  It's not needed for the distributed tarballs.  You are
>also missing gs (GhostScript) and psselect (which allows one to
>select individual pages from a PostScript document), and the
>Nimbus Sans L fonts.  Install the missing bits, and I suspect your
>build will go much better.

Yeah, I installed packages as I found them missing. Hadn't got netpbm,
psselect though. However based on Werner's comment I skipped this bit by
touching a doc/gnu.eps.

>I'm not sure what to make of this one, I'm afraid.  Perhaps it's
>related to the version of sed?  Does OS-X use GNU sed?  That's
>what I've got here, and I didn't get this error.  I'm just
>guessing, though.

No Darwin uses the BSD sed.

Werner wrote:

>Please try the patch below.

That worked. Along with creating an empty doc/gnu.eps the make went through
fine.

My diff looks like:

$ git diff
diff --git a/contrib/mom/mom.am b/contrib/mom/mom.am
index 05df2f0..94c3dd1 100644
--- a/contrib/mom/mom.am
+++ b/contrib/mom/mom.am
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ penguin.pdf:

 $(MOMSTRIPFILES): $(top_srcdir)/tmac/strip.sed
        @$(MKDIR_P) `dirname address@hidden
-       sed -f $(top_srcdir)/tmac/strip.sed $(mom_srcdir)/`basename 
address@hidden >
$@;
+       LANG=C LC_ALL=C sed -f $(top_srcdir)/tmac/strip.sed
$(mom_srcdir)/`basename address@hidden > $@;

 install-data-hook: install_mom

- Vaibhaw


On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 6:28 AM, Ingo Schwarze <address@hidden> wrote:

> Hi Bertrand,
>
> Bertrand Garrigues wrote on Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 01:37:50AM +0200:
> > On Mon, Aug 11 2014 at 08:59:58 PM, Ingo Schwarze <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>
> >> Using $< in a non-suffix rule context is a GNUmake idiom (Makefile:8454)
> >> *** Error 2 in /co/groff/build (Makefile:3654 'all')
> >>
> >> Please apply the following patch to the automake branch.
> >
> > The use of $> in your patch doesn't work on my environment, it is
> > replaced by an empty string. What is it by the way ? The only
> > information I found on this symbol was a suggestion on the GNU make
> > mailing list to define it as an alias to $^.
>
> Oops, you are right, i misremembered, $> isn't standard, either.
> In BSD make, $> is the list of all prerequisites for the target in
> question.  Of course, replacing a GNUmake idion by a BSDmake idiom
> doesn't make it any better.
>
> > In pdfmark.am I can replace $< by the name of the file, so it
> > shouldn't be a problem.
>
> Exactly, that's the right fix.  In inference rules, $< is fine,
> and in non-inference rules, you can almost always just spell out
> the prerequisite.
>
> > In groffer.am I've made a mistake and the man files are not properly
> > generated, I'll work on this tomorrow and get rid of this $<.
>
> Fine, thanks.
>
> > In doc.am your patch seems to work on my environment, but I don't quite
> > understand why it works for you on the master branch, I've just adapted
> > the doc/Makefile.sub file which uses $< in a non-suffix rule.
>
> Heh.  The master branch works for me because the broken rules
> refer to HTML documentation, and in the master branch, the HTML
> doc switch isn't broken, so the broken rules aren't triggered
> in my build.   >:-o
>
> So this should probably be fixed in the master, too.
>
> Yours,
>   Ingo
>
>