Re: texinfo-6.0.91 pretest

[Gavin Smith]

On 2 January 2016 at 09:44, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> I applied the latest changes from the repository, and the crashes are
> gone!

Awesome.

> A few observations and issues with the rest of the build:
>
> "make install" installs the XSParagraph shared libraries into
> ${prefix}/libexec/texinfo -- is that the correct place?  Will Perl
> find these modules when texi2any runs it?

Yes, the directory libexecdir given by configure is set in "texi2any",
which is generated from "texi2any.pl".

> Also, "make install" seems to install the TestXS shared library as
> well -- is that intended?

No, it isn't intended.

> The test suite passes as well -- with a single exception of htmlxref
> tests, see below.  But I think I saw some message from you that
> XSParagraph modules are disabled during the tests?

Not any more.

> (How does one
> disable that once Texinfo is installed, btw?  I might need that
> if/when I see any abnormal results from running makeinfo.)

Set the TEXINFO_XS environment variable to "omit". See
tp/Texinfo/Convert/Paragraph.pm for other possible values.

> The failures in htmlxref tests are due to a formatting issue.  The
> diffs look like this:
>
>      diff --strip-trailing-cr -a -u -r 
> .//diffs/staging_res/htmlxref_nodes/test_refs.2 
> .//out_parser/htmlxref_nodes/test_refs.2
>      --- .//diffs/staging_res/htmlxref_nodes/test_refs.2     2014-12-19 
> 22:07:28 +0200
>      +++ .//out_parser/htmlxref_nodes/test_refs.2    2016-01-02 11:36:15 +0200
>      @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
>      -./htmlxref.cnf:15: warning: unrecognized type: foo
>      -./htmlxref.cnf:16: warning: missing type
>      +htmlxref.cnf:15: warning: unrecognized type: foo
>      +htmlxref.cnf:16: warning: missing type
>      FAIL test_scripts/htmlxref_htmlxref_nodes.sh (exit status: 1)
>
> So it's a "./foo" vs "foo" issue.  I don't think this is a real
> problem, is it?  If so, can this be fixed somehow so as not to cause
> bogus failure indications?  (Btw, why two slashes in "//diffs"?)

Doesn't look like an important failure, although it would be good to
fix. I don't know why this is happening at the moment.