At 2018-12-09T05:12:25+0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Here is a better idea, which is also simpler.
> The problem is that the variables PREFIXMAN5 and PREFIXMAN7 are empty.
>
> Carefully inspecting the groff source tree with grep(1), i convinced
> myself that they are *always* empty, no matter the c
At 2018-12-09T01:02:19+0100, Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
> > I'm attaching the fix to the "POSITIONS FROM INSTALLATION" section
> > (which I would like to rename--it's pretty awkward English), and below
> > please find a 'git log origin..HEAD' of my other pending changes.
>
> I think you've attached
Hi,
Bertrand Garrigues wrote on Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 01:09:28AM +0100:
> On Sat, Dec 08 2018 at 09:56:07 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>>> On Solaris 9, installation still fails because of the "for f in ;
>>> do" we discussed earlier, and the test suite still fails as shown a
Hi Bertrand,
Bertrand Garrigues wrote on Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 12:52:04AM +0100:
> On Sat, Dec 08 2018 at 08:06:11 PM, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>> On Solaris 10, Perl 5.8.4 is in use. On that ancient version of Perl,
>> Deri's latest gropdf(1) endianness fix is ineffective because support
>> for "L<
Hi Deri,
Deri wrote on Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 12:30:14AM +:
> On Saturday, 8 December 2018 23:52:04 GMT Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
>> I can't judge if it would be easy or not to work around this problem (I
>> let Deri comment on that), but I agree that it's probably not worth
>> spending too muc
On Saturday, 8 December 2018 23:52:04 GMT Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
> > On Solaris 10, Perl 5.8.4 is in use. On that ancient version of Perl,
> > Deri's latest gropdf(1) endianness fix is ineffective because support
> > for "L<" appears to be broken in unpack(3p).
>
> [...]
>
> > I don't think w
Hi Werner,
On Sat, Dec 08 2018 at 09:56:07 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> On Solaris 9, installation still fails because of the "for f in ;
>> do" we discussed earlier, and the test suite still fails as shown at
>> the end (no change in that respect), but i see no regressions from
>> your patch.
>
Hi Branden,
On Sat, Dec 08 2018 at 02:04:33 PM, "G. Branden Robinson"
wrote:
> At 2018-12-08T18:58:01+0100, Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
>> > * How do i know what to insert for ?
>> [...]
>>
>> In the main groff(1) man page there is the 'POSITIONS FROM INSTALLATION'
>> section that documents all
Hi Ingo,
On Sat, Dec 08 2018 at 08:06:11 PM, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> incidentally, i did an update of my OpenBSD-current base system
> since building the last groff release tarball three days ago.
> The system now uses the LLVM linker by default instead of the GNU
> binutils linker:
[...]
> I do n
Hi Ingo,
> On Solaris 10, Perl 5.8.4 is in use. On that ancient version of Perl,
> Deri's latest gropdf(1) endianness fix is ineffective because support
> for "L<" appears to be broken in unpack(3p).
Are you aware of `N' and `V'? I wonder if they work.
Cheers, Ralph.
> On Solaris 9, installation still fails because of the "for f in ;
> do" we discussed earlier, and the test suite still fails as shown at
> the end (no change in that respect), but i see no regressions from
> your patch.
I really see no reason to not fix this single spot that prevents
installat
Hi Bertrand,
incidentally, i did an update of my OpenBSD-current base system
since building the last groff release tarball three days ago.
The system now uses the LLVM linker by default instead of the GNU
binutils linker:
$ which ld
/usr/bin/ld
$ ld --version
LLD 6.0.0 (compatible with
At 2018-12-08T18:58:01+0100, Bertrand Garrigues wrote:
> > * How do i know what to insert for ?
> [...]
>
> In the main groff(1) man page there is the 'POSITIONS FROM INSTALLATION'
> section that documents all the installation directories used by the
> groff package. This man page is generated a
Hi Ralph,
Ralph Corderoy wrote on Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 11:28:40AM +:
> Ingo:
>> Ralph:
>>> Ingo:
Ralph:
> The time-honoured way to get modern-day `printf foo' is
> echo foo | tr -d \\012
>> Why would you want to return to echo(1)?
> Because I was giving the `time-honoured
Hi Ingo, hi Peter,
On Fri, Dec 07 2018 at 08:46:23 PM, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Peter Schaffter wrote on Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 11:18:32AM -0500:
[...]
>> Bertrand, how do you feel about omitting the local docs, leaving
>> just the pointer to the online docs? If you're agreeable, I can
>> commit the
Hi Ingo,
> > > > The time-honoured way to get modern-day `printf foo' is
> > > >
> > > > echo foo | tr -d \\012
>
> Why would you want to return to echo(1)?
Because I was giving the `time-honoured way' and I thought I saw a
recent mention on this that if something still works on older system
16 matches
Mail list logo
