On 09.01.25 00:40, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 11:51:07PM +0100, Preuße, Hilmar wrote:
Hello,
I have two small questions, I hope they can be answered easily. 1. In the DBTS we got a bug report telling that pod2texi.1 contains formatting errors [1]. The header of that file reads: .\" Automatically generated by Pod::Man (Pod::Simple) .\" .\" Standard preamble: As the file is (re)generated I refused to accept the patch. By looking at a build log [2] however I noticed that the file is not (re)generated, instead there is a file called pod2texi.1 in your git source tree. Is the header statement still correct?It is indeed (re)generated, but not systematically. Speaking only for myself, as I believe we did not discuss it formally with Gavin, I try not to regenerate it myself as Gavin tends to have older software, such that if I regenerate it and Gavin cannot it will be trouble.
Looking at the Makefile.in it seems the file is (re)generated if it does not exist, but I'm not a Makefile expert. I'll try that, but not today.
2. In Debian we installed the .la files into /usr/lib/texinfo/ until version 7.1.1 [3]. For the 7.2 packages [4] I skipped them: I could convert some files using texi2any, so no drawbacks visible until now. Are these files really needed?I think not, on GNU/Linux and for installed libraries, the dynamic loading support and use of rpath should make sure that the libraries are correctly found and loaded even without .la, and in our code we do not error out if the .la is not found. In-source and probably for other platforms the .la are needed.
For now I install again some of the *.la files (*XS*.la, but not lib*.la). As far as I understaood this is sufficient.
Many thanks, Hilmar -- Testmail
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
