On 2020/02/29 22:28:14, dak wrote: > On 2020/02/29 22:13:42, hanwenn wrote: > > added > > > > * Remove unused GROFF and LD autoconf vars > > > > to the commit msg. > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/547690053/diff/567300043/config.make.in > > File config.make.in (right): > > > > > https://codereview.appspot.com/547690053/diff/567300043/config.make.in#newcode48 > > config.make.in:48: GROFF = @GROFF@ > > On 2020/02/29 22:03:03, dak wrote: > > > These sort of drive-by changes without any mention in commit message or > issue > > > make it a bit harder to review. I find > > > > > > stepmake/stepmake/documentation-rules.make: troff -man -Tascii $< | > grotty > > > -b -u -o > $@ > > > > > > which is awkward by not using anything actually tested for. Nevertheless, > use > > > of grotty probably requires the presence of the groff package. The test > > should > > > likely be better targeted than what we currently have, though. > > > > do we use the .txt anywhere? The docker images (which don't include groff) > don't > > seem to fail for this. > > What do you mean with "fail for this"? Since the results of the test for groff
You'd expect failures to occur if groff wasn't installed; but come to think of it, I'm only testing the regtests through docker (there is an obscure error with make doc that I haven't fixed yet.), so I may not have full coverage. However, I think we don't generate .txt files, except maybe in the "make dist". Let me test that. > are not actually used anywhere, removing the test will not change anything. > Removing the groff package from the docker image, in contrast, could be > problematic. > I really have no clue about the workings of our build system. https://codereview.appspot.com/547690053/