Re: Code coverage report for groff 1.24.0pre -- thanks, gnulib!

"G. Branden Robinson" <[email protected]> Fri, 16 Jan 2026 20:06:35 -0600

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs,gmane.comp.printing.groff.general
Message-ID	<20260117020635.prwntubjkg6fzfbv@illithid>

Hi Simon,

At 2026-01-17T02:37:58+0100, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> "G. Branden Robinson" <[email protected]> writes:
> > In groff, we don't use GNUMakefiles--we try to use portable Make,
> > and have largely succeeded.
> 
> Out of curiosity, how do you know that?  What kind of non-GNU make
> implementations do you test and support?

I've built with Debian's bmake, which I _think_ is the same one (though
likely a different release of) the one used by NetBSD and OpenBSD.

ii  bmake  20200710-14+deb11u1  amd64  NetBSD make

...but not lately.  I should give it another go...

Okay, bmake (this version anyway), absurdly doesn't accept "-j10" as
option, claiming that the option argument "isn't an integer".

Hmm, and I see I've gotten myself into trouble with
font/devpdf/symbolsl.{afm,pfb}.  A clash between BSD and GNU ideas of
the meaning of VPATH, I think.  This rings a bell.  I'll need to do an
in-tree build.

However, kludging through it with:

cd build
bmake
bmake ./font/devpdf/symbolsl.afm
bmake ./font/devpdf/symbolsl.pfb
bmake

(The leading "./" is CRUCIAL.)

...the build runs to completion and exits with status zero.

I haven't tested an in-tree build in a while, and this prompts me to do
so--thanks!  If I could just get my "automated upload registration"
processed, I'd be tagging and signing groff 1.24.0.rc1 _really_ soon.

> I tried some time ago to find some well-maintained make to do
> alternative testing with, but I gave up because none worked on any
> modern GNU/Linux distribution, or did intentionally not target POSIX
> compliance and broke easily.  Maybe things have changed since then, so
> pointers welcome.

If you can live with in-tree builds, they may have.  I'm a little irked
by that, and by BSD make's refusal to implement pattern rules because
either they crawl with GNU cooties, or because clear semantics are not
worth typing two more "%"s and a ": "--this asks too much of the
descendants of the slackjawed disciples Thompson won for himself during
his 1975 sabbatical.  I wrote up my grievance at length.

https://cgit.git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/doc/doc.am?id=a18efe62807b77caf18da08ab2095bd35577277d#n306

That was almost enough to drive me to dynamite any claim of support for
any Make but GNU's...but not quite.

When I "git blamed" gnulib's "top/maint.mk" to see how I'd need to
update the copyright notice in groff's "Makefile.am", I saw your name
next to most of this coverage stuff.  Thank you!

Regards,
Branden

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)