Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 11 release branch created!

On 7/5/21 5:34 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
>>  [email protected]
>> From: Tom de Vries <[email protected]>
>> Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2021 15:36:07 +0200
>>
>>> Wouldn't it be better to modify the configure script so that
>>> READLINE_TEXI_INCFLAG always includes "-I ${READLINE_DIR}"?  Or did I
>>> misunderstand the reason why makeinfo doesn't find the Readline
>>> manual?
>>
>> I was not trying to suggest a fix, but merely trying to point out that
>> we seem to be going forth and back on this (that, and the reproducer
>> seemed to be worth sharing at that point).
>>
>> Anyway, by now I've investigated a bit further.
>>
>> The difficulty seems to be that the documentation is dependent on
>> configure options.
> 
> Yes, and that should probably change (I have an idea for how to do
> that).

Cool.

> But the change isn't so trivial, so I think it isn't
> appropriate for the branch.

Ack.

> Therefore, I tried to propose a band-aid:
> have the readline/readline/doc directory be _always_ on the makeinfo's
> include path, so that if someone reconfigures GDB like in the
> reproducer, they still get a successful build, albeit with a couple of
> sections in the manual they don't need.
> 

AFAIU, the problem is not that users get a couple of sections in the
manual they don't need.  The problem is that the users get the incorrect
version of a section of the manual.

> Could you please see if my proposal solves the immediate problem?  And
> if not, explain what I missed?
> 

Sure, no problem.

I did this:
...
-  READLINE_TEXI_INCFLAG=
+  READLINE_TEXI_INCFLAG='-I $(READLINE_DIR)'
...
in src/gdb/configure and managed to finish the build.

>> I can think of two clean ways to handle pre-generated docs in such a case:
>> - not including pre-generated docs in the source tarball
> 
> That'd contradict GNU conventions: we always include the generated
> Info manuals in the release tarballs.
> 
>> - generating a version of the docs for the source
>>   tarball, that conservatively agrees with all configure choices.
> 
> I think this is sufficiently complex to avoid doing that on the
> branch.  We could try this on master, of course.  But right now, I'd
> like to fix the branch so that we don't have a regression, while still
> allowing people to build GDB without having Texinfo installed.
> 
>> To give an example of what I'm concerned about: say a user has a system
>> without makeinfo, and builds with --with-system-readline.  Then the gdb
>> documentation point to the in-source readline docs, which does not
>> necessarily agree with the actually used readline version.
> 
> That's true, but I don't see that as a serious enough problem to delay
> the release of GDB 11.  Of course, it isn't my call, eventually.
> 

Well, I don't see any reason to delay the release.

I'd say the easiest way to fix the problem is to revert the commit that
introduced the problem.

Thanks,
- Tom