Hi Christian, thanks for the feedback! I really appreaciate that. I will look at making a leaner version of the port avoiding the TeXLive dependency. I'll explore the options and come back to you. It's not yet urgent because the release has not yet arrived, but it's very good that i already got your guidance.
See below for a few details. Yours, Ingo Christian Weisgerber wrote on Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 11:17:07PM +0100: > 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. tar -tzvf groff-1.23.0.rc1.tar.gz | grep -F .info tells me the groff project doesn't include it in the tarball, but maybe i can convince them to do that in the future. > ... Although, I guess that groff wants to build HTML/PDF documentation? Yes, groff wants to do that, but i wouldn't consider that important. There is not much point in installing HTML and PDF files when the same information is also available in man(1) or info(1) form. > 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. I did check that, right now, there is no recursive dependency. But i missed that fact that it sets a trap, so i'll work on a way to update to 1.23.0 without setting that trap. >> * 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. Duly noted. > (Admittedly, much Doxygen-generated documentation seems very poor > in the first place and just regurgitates header files.) Indeed, Doxygen is mostly useless.
