[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Release Candidate 1.23.0.rc1
From: |
G. Branden Robinson |
Subject: |
Re: Release Candidate 1.23.0.rc1 |
Date: |
Thu, 8 Apr 2021 12:24:56 +1000 |
User-agent: |
NeoMutt/20180716 |
Hi Dave,
At 2021-04-07T20:55:58-0500, Dave Kemper wrote:
> On 11/12/20, Bertrand Garrigues via <groff@gnu.org> wrote:
> > Release candidate 1.23.0.rc1 is now available from GNU's alpha ftp. The
> > version can be downloaded here:
> >
> > https://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/groff/.
>
> rc1 from November is still the latest one on this page, so I presume
> no others have been created yet.
That's my understanding. I inquired after an rc2 a few weeks ago[1] but
nothing has come of it as yet.
> I've noticed a possible issue in it.
>
> In past releases, groff's -b option activated backtraces for every
> warning or error. In rc1, backtraces appear to be on by default, and
> there is no corresponding option to turn them off. A simple example
> is the command
>
> $ echo '.tm \n(ZZ' | groff -ww
>
> Under groff 1.22.4, this emitted to stderr:
>
> troff: <standard input>:1: warning: number register 'ZZ' not defined
>
> But under rc1 it emits:
>
> troff: backtrace: file '<standard input>':1
> troff: <standard input>:1: warning: number register 'ZZ' not defined
>
> The rc1 documentation still says that -b turns backtraces on, implying
> they should be off by default. And it lists no new option for turning
> them off if they are already on.
You didn't indicate how you're invoking the release candidate groff; if
you're using test-groff, you should be aware that this wrapper script
turns on all warnings and backtraces.
If you got the above behavior from a "make install"ed groff 1.23.0.rc1,
then I agree that this does sound like a bug.
Regards,
Branden
[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/groff/2021-02/msg00050.html
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature