At 2026-07-28T19:59:54-0500, Dave Kemper wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 2:28 PM G. Branden Robinson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 2.  Make "test-groff" set "PATH=$GROFF_BIN_PATH" and see what, if
> >     anything, breaks.
> 
> It breaks any .sy calls in the input document, for one (unless they
> use a full path, presumably).

Hmm, yes, then it would break `pso` and `pi` requests as well, then.

However, those requests do not have a major impact on our build.

Apart from a handful of automated scripts that test the foregoing
requests, only a couple of hdtbl and mom(7) examples, and the `PDFPIC`
macro, require unsafe mode.

While it's too much fuss and bother for groff 1.25.0, longer term I
think I'd prefer to work around that difficulty in "test-groff.in" and
any test scripts and Makefile recipes requiring a "full" $PATH; in
exchange we'd get a more deterministic build of our documentary
artifacts--which the reproducible builds movement may appreciate--and
greater sensitivity to a botched generation procedure for said
artifacts.

What do you think?

Regards,
Branden

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

          • ... G. Branden Robinson
            • ... Richard Purdie
              • ... Nguyễn Gia Phong via discussion of the GNU roff typesetting system and related software
              • ... G. Branden Robinson
              • ... G. Branden Robinson
              • ... Bruno Haible via discussion of the GNU roff typesetting system and related software
        • ... Bruno Haible via discussion of the GNU roff typesetting system and related software
  • ... G. Branden Robinson
    • ... Richard Purdie
    • ... Dave Kemper
      • ... G. Branden Robinson
        • ... Dave Kemper
    • ... Deri via discussion of the GNU roff typesetting system and related software
      • ... G. Branden Robinson

Reply via email to