Re: Code coverage report for groff 1.24.0pre -- thanks, gnulib!
"G. Branden Robinson" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs,gmane.comp.printing.groff.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20260117022146.3fyqu46pygihlrwz@illithid> |
At 2026-01-17T03:13:00+0100, Bruno Haible wrote: > G. Branden Robinson wrote: > > > What kind of non-GNU make > > > implementations do you test and support? > > > > I've built with Debian's bmake > > Here, we stopped testing with 'bmake' from Debian after this discussion: > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2024-12/msg00228.html Ah, yeah, it seems Debian's bmake is snakebit. (5+ years old, anyway.) I'm not having any better luck with an in-tree build, bmake is still barfing on those same two targets. But JUST THOSE TWO. (I tried some workarounds, like "$(devpdf_builddir)/./symbolsl.afm:". No dice.) Maybe it's an actual bug as opposed to a portability failure on groff's/my part. Resigned regards, Branden
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEh3PWHWjjDgcrENwa0Z6cfXEmbc4FAmlq8jEACgkQ0Z6cfXEm bc7G6RAApN+oqx4u+vbIkH2G0TpU+e/WF1zyq/OPJgPmcruFU/ZIkMBJEanfD4bz GHczqZ65h4K6yMbT2Wby/Koj503VG3otCiUrAvypH4KnEy3HklQ3pzxu1BONFx/E MKLDVQ1dt6hQN0uEVeR8psEafRTHNPvORwguYNiTQm96GGzJ1/oo8d9aEfLVCBHC EeZR0cnLyjPS8RG7B/inV2JIgse8JEuNx65zwxDqvuXoHaLkhNKi4bX2sOVlHs7b 7E6Ro4r5E5L2S+Rjs78zmVqsD66nMsS7qAHklTmhEhkK9If1C/QRLpI7lZVU+X98 m804aS8TnVxKvSOTjJK5YHNR0RhC20NXvGjAqj0cqk+WlxXsCDyyUrk87byOZN0A 2sUFrlEmSLdZ208iTevc0CV4GfmTRizsdsDx2vVsgFyTvgSRiaWKzZ5qg9778sFG +MXFUe8s/2tVwYBlPNZrwubk6aOOAM0AE2kQ4lbyECtQakbxnCAsSUyEY+jpfnkC S4EKFKpRgl6USYOttykdi4uvXUCyApk/7tcYfm0lFsRXco8MNj+t6Y8UkIBo1KY5 1HXi2Ic38reZow8l4jcnkEwndKzsbpP7l7zvavSBZ2lzATar0W7BjmT5t1hfG3Mp 600MGbu2wH7m3WtWnxWfh4CHTf6RTkS7o2oQec6jXnLGamp6n5M= =LCrY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----