On Mar 31, 2022, at 9:18 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> I see your point about distcheck. I tend to build tarballs from source
> to then use in pkgsrc (not that I publish those tarballs and packages),
> to be able to debug the combination of upstream and pkgsrc to be ready
> for a release. I can
Should be all FOSS as far as dependencies go, just not all OSes package all
the pieces (and/or stuff nneded to build them easily).
And true, some use-cases are not as wide-spread as others, e.g. LLNL
libpowerman(ager) or to an extent NetXML from a decade or two of
Eaton-branded networked UPSes,
On 3/31/22 6:15 AM, Jim Klimov wrote:
> As for the man page (re)builds, there might be a better way to handle
> that, but de-facto there are two sets of target lists in
> docs/man/Makefile.am:
> * man5_MANS (more for other numbers, other formats) that would build
> just the pages needed for your
As for the man page (re)builds, there might be a better way to handle that,
but de-facto there are two sets of target lists in docs/man/Makefile.am:
* man5_MANS (more for other numbers, other formats) that would build just
the pages needed for your drivers, developer features etc. requested by
Regarding distcheck, like in other autotools projects, it was historically
geared towards testing that "everything" (`--with-all`) can be built from
tarball, not relying on git/svn/... sources (and possibly relying on
generated files like the copy of configure script itself) - and so to check
that
* make check
When I run make check, the good news is that it seems to pass
everything.
But it looks like it is building man pages that maybe should have been
built during the build.
[snip]
Making check in docs
Making check in man
make check-local
PASSED man-source sanity check
