Re: build cleanups. (issue 547690053 by address@hidden)

[hanwenn]

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/