Re: Missing makefile dependencies

On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 9:48=E2=80=AFPM G. Branden Robinson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> While it's too much fuss and bother for groff 1.25.0, longer term I
> think I'd prefer to work around that difficulty in "test-groff.in" and
> any test scripts and Makefile recipes requiring a "full" $PATH; in
> exchange we'd get a more deterministic build of our documentary
> artifacts--which the reproducible builds movement may appreciate--and
> greater sensitivity to a botched generation procedure for said
> artifacts.
>
> What do you think?

I've argued before for the usefulness of test-groff as a
general-purpose groff testing script, and use it that way frequently
myself.  So I'm not keen on a change that makes it less useful in that
realm.

However, I already lost that argument some six years ago
(http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?57630), and your proposal seems in line
with the scope of test-groff as envisioned in that ticket, so I can
find no new grounds upon which to object.