Follow-up Comment #7, bug #66583 (group groff): [comment #6 comment #6:] > There's some grief to work through. > > [...] > > My guess is that onf's if HAVE_MAKEINFO conditional eats too much.
It took me a while to figure out what those warnings even mean. Looking at
doc/doc.am, I see that there are a bunch of suspicious-looking make targets,
most notably `all` which is referenced by the warnings. The warnings seem to
complain (among other things) that Makefile.am is trying to define target
`all` which was already defined in doc/doc.am. That is not a defect introduced
by my patch, though; I merely surrounded those rules in doc/doc.am with a
conditional. Looking at the affected area of doc/doc.am, there is not a single
thing within the conditional that is not info-related; in fact the entire area
is introduced by a long comment beggining with
# groff Texinfo manual
+verbatim+
In any case, it seems you ran this with HAVE_MAKEINFO evaluating to true. If
that's the case, the conditional shouldn't change anything; the result should
be equivalent to the conditional line not even being there. So I believe those
warnings might not be related to my patch; maybe they just stopped being
silent for some reason.
~ onf
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?66583>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
