Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> wrote: |> ...and no chance to take advantage of git(1) compressing it's |> blobs, which is what i was indeed referring to? The bitmap seems |> to be unchanged from the first check-in until today (and i can't |> imagine that someone wants to change that one, too). | |It is a very good principle to put only real source files into a git |repository, and no generated files. I will continue so. My successor |might make a different decision, though.
Sure, that is your decision. |> It is maybe worth thinking about doing so for GNU Troff, as it is |> the only step that is missing to have `VCS-checkout == |> distribution-to-go', which seems to me is a desirable thing; | |No, it isn't, IMHO. For example, many people don't have `makeinfo' Yes.. but i mostly hang around with operating systems (e.g. NetBSD, ArchLinux) which ship those info tools, including makeinfo(1), by default. |installed to build the info files, or `autoconf' to generate the |configure script. People who check out from the git *must* have all Hah! I was really thankful that the generated `configure' became part of the git(1) repo -- *thank you* for this decision! I will not start a rant on one of the most horrifying pieces of software ever written (GNU autotools), because i see that even a complicated piece of software like GNU Troff can be driven with a 128KB m4/ directory. |the necessary tools. In case you really can't manage to install the |netpbm tools (something which I rather doubt), it's still possible to Yes i did, yesterday -- it was the shown `export' plus a configure run (i used static linking to avoid any possible problems with Apple .dylib, though). One `FALSE' assignment must be changed to a `NULL' one, that's all. (That is: you need to be a programmer.) |do | | touch gnu.eps Would it make sense to send a patch that does this if at the end of all the conditions there is still no `gnu.eps'? With the pre-shipped `configure' and a distribution-provided makeinfo(1) that is what is missing for distribution-to-go, like i've said. But of course it doesn't sound like you love that. |to get an empty file and the build process should finish successfully. Yes, one can get through it. |> It seems more and more projects do not even provide release balls, |> but require packagers to do that work for them; [...] | |I very much dislike this idea. Fortunately, since groff is a GNU |project, we don't go this route. | |> E.g., if i would be a MOM user i surely would have loved to get |> the new thing at a glance, | |You can do so, since Peter distributes MOM separately, exactly for |this reason. Yes, i didn't know that but obviously he does. Well, i long have the plan to unrot our *roff macros and (that is the plan) add all the functionality of our beloved but lost TeX package into it, so as to make it a real package, for users. It would be nice if at that time Groff would consider it for inclusion, just like it did with MOM, but that'll be a long road. Thank you and ciao | Werner --steffen
