Hello Werner,
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
|> But the FSFology will not make me sign something that is not legal,
|> which is admitted by even the FSFE itself [...]
|
|Well, it would probably have no influence to the jurisdiction in
|Germany, but it would have a value for the FSF in the US...
Yes
> But the FSFology will not make me sign something that is not legal,
> which is admitted by even the FSFE itself [...]
Well, it would probably have no influence to the jurisdiction in
Germany, but it would have a value for the FSF in the US...
> Just in case you're interested in the thing itsel
Peter Schaffter wrote:
|On Wed, Mar 19, 2014, Werner Lemberg wrote:
|>> I can't spot any problems with Steffen's 'touch gnu.eps' proposal to
|>> prevent build failure in the absence of the netpbm tools. Werner?
|>
|> Well, this *only* happens if you do a build from the git repository;
|> f
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> How about a README.* for development that lists the typical packages
> needed for common platforms so the resources are just a single `apt-get
> install' away?
It's already in README, but it won't hurt to add it to INSTALL.REPO
for good measure.
--
P
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014, Werner Lemberg wrote:
> > I can't spot any problems with Steffen's 'touch gnu.eps' proposal to
> > prevent build failure in the absence of the netpbm tools. Werner?
>
> Well, this *only* happens if you do a build from the git repository;
> for this situation I still think th
Hi Peter,
Werner wrote
> Well, this *only* happens if you do a build from the git repository;
> for this situation I still think that you should have all the tools.
It's long been tradition across free software that building a released
tarball required less tools than grabbing the in-development
>> Now the only problem that remains for me is that
>>
>> $ ./configure --without-x --with-doc=examples; make
>>
>> fails with error if `gnu.xpm' cannot be converted because of
>> missing tools. I'm still the opinion that this is not acceptable
>> behaviour and that the `touch gnu.eps' should
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> Now the only problem that remains for me is that
>
> $ ./configure --without-x --with-doc=examples; make
>
> fails with error if `gnu.xpm' cannot be converted because of
> missing tools. I'm still the opinion that this is not acceptable
> behavio
Heya, Ralph,
Ralph Corderoy wrote:
|Hi Steffen,
|
|> That is, tr(1) is buggy
|
|tr(1) seems to be behaving as I'd expect. The \n is a control character
oh yes, compilation on CRUX-3 Linux succeeds without any problems,
the font listing is worked from top to bottom.
Now the only problem th
Hi Steffen,
> That is, tr(1) is buggy
tr(1) seems to be behaving as I'd expect. The \n is a control character
and is being turned into space so you have to add another with echo. It
thinks 0-0x1f and 0x7f are cntrl.
$ recode /test8 tr -c '[:cntrl:]' - |
> tr '[:cntrl:]' c |
> fold
I wrote..
|find below something that adds the mentioned options and also
|tweaks the make system a bit -- 'make install' and 'make
|uninstall' seem to work again after the patch series is applied.
|There are still problems ('make install' with DESTDIR set results
|in some errors along the way,
> find below something that adds the mentioned options and also tweaks
> the make system a bit [...]
Excellent, thanks a lot! To be able to apply this to the repository,
I need a copyright disclaimer (sent privately). As soon as I get a
confirmation from the FSF clerk, I will have a more detail
.. i've taken keithmarshall@ off Cc:, my mail-provider cannot
deliver to this address
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
|> IMO, "--without-doc" should not apply to the "make dist" goal.
|
|Yep.
|
|> I also think having a check here and there is not a bad thing. I'll
|> add it for my patch.
|
|
> IMO, "--without-doc" should not apply to the "make dist" goal.
Yep.
> I also think having a check here and there is not a bad thing. I'll
> add it for my patch.
OK.
> In fact it seems that AC_ARG_WITH doesn't allow to define an
> enumeration of allowed arguments, so that this is implied as
Keith Marshall wrote:
|On 14/03/14 20:04, Peter Schaffter wrote:
|> Can't imagine a situation where 'make dist' would want to exclude
|> documentation. Assume nothing. :)
|
|Since the intended purpose of "make dist" is to create distribution
|tarballs, such as those published on FSF mirror
Nice saturday,
Peter Schaffter wrote:
|On Fri, Mar 14, 2014, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> well ok, i think i have something that i could post (after some
|> more checking, i.e., tomorrow).
|> What would you say about an additional --with-examples?
|
|What would be the point? PREFIX/doc/examp
On 14/03/14 20:04, Peter Schaffter wrote:
> Can't imagine a situation where 'make dist' would want to exclude
> documentation. Assume nothing. :)
Since the intended purpose of "make dist" is to create distribution
tarballs, such as those published on FSF mirrors, it really wouldn't be
appropriate
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> well ok, i think i have something that i could post (after some
> more checking, i.e., tomorrow).
> What would you say about an additional --with-examples?
What would be the point? PREFIX/doc/examples occupies
over 3/4 of PREFIX/doc. What gain woul
Hello,
well ok, i think i have something that i could post (after some
more checking, i.e., tomorrow).
What would you say about an additional --with-examples?
We could solely skip PDF_PROGRAMS if neiter is desired, then.
And how fully blown do you actually want it: should a `make dist'
fail and co
19 matches
Mail list logo
