Ingo Schwarze: > There is another reason why now is a good time to switch priorities. > Upstream has been doing lots of work on documentation, and in that > context, they decided to use newer makeinfo(1) features that our > ancient /usr/bin/makeinfo does not support. The natural consequence > is to make groff depend on the print/texinfo port and use the newer > gmakeinfo(1) version contained in that port to format the groff > documentation. (Yes, the irony that groff does *not* use roff for > its own documentation but instead uses TeX is not lost on me.)
It is GNU project policy that distribution tarballs include pre-formatted .info files so that makeinfo is NOT required. ... Although, I guess that groff wants to build HTML/PDF documentation? The need for a newer makeinfo will bite us more and more, especially porters who are not as comfortable disentangling the dependencies and touch(1)ing the correct files when upstream make a mistake while creating the tarball and the autotools build cascade goes off and wants to re-run makeinfo without need... > Now, print/texinfo isn't exactly a lean port. Here is its > list of dependencies according to "make full-all-depends": Installing this monster for a newer makeinfo(1) will sooner or later trap us in a recursive dependency. > * Texinfo is needed to build the documentation. The alternative > would be to ship groff without documentation and point people to > https://www.gnu.org/software/groff/manual/html_node/ . > But frankly, we don't generally like telling people "get the > manual from the web" in OpenBSD. Actually, we tend not to build documentation that requires pulling in dependencies like Doxygen or, well, TeXLive. (Admittedly, much Doxygen-generated documentation seems very poor in the first place and just regurgitates header files.) -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
