URL:
  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68034>

                 Summary: make out-of-tree build the default, and explore
dropping in-tree support
                   Group: GNU roff
               Submitter: None
               Submitted: Mon 09 Feb 2026 07:49:14 AM UTC
                Category: General
                Severity: 3 - Normal
              Item Group: Build/Installation
                  Status: None
                 Privacy: Public
             Assigned to: None
             Open/Closed: Open
         Discussion Lock: Unlocked
         Planned Release: None


    _______________________________________________________

Follow-up Comments:


-------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon 09 Feb 2026 07:49:14 AM UTC By: Anonymous
Ingo Schwarze said (http://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2026-01/msg00078.html):

"I doubt that the current in-tree/out-of-tree situation makes much sense.
IIUC, the maintainer... prefers out-of-tree by a significant margin, and
rarely tests in-tree.  Why, then, is in-tree the default?

"I would even go one step further.  Given that you prefer out-of-tree, that it
is objectively cleaner and better tested, why is in-tree even supported at
all?  Simply deleting the code supporting in-tree and making all builds
out-of-tree naively looks like a win for everyone: less maintenance and
testing effort for you and more cleanliness and better testing for the benefit
of users."

In a separate thread (http://lists.gnu.org/r/groff/2026-02/msg00038.html),
Branden responded to the latter question:

"I don't have an answer apart from 'inertia'.  However, we must be mindful of
how inertia manifests.  If the bits of the GNU build system that we use
generally presume and advertise support for in-tree builds, we could be
trading one pile of grief for another by breaking that presumption, and by
violating user expectations."

So, after 1.24 is released, changing the default to out-of-tree seems a
worthwhile step, and dropping in-tree support altogether is worth exploring.







    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68034>

_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to