bison 2.6.2

[Peter Breitenlohner]

Hi,

the distributed bison-2.6.2 tarball contains the two stale files
doc/bison.info-{1,2} from 2.6.1-dirty, and their existence in the source
tree causes them uselessly to be installed.

Please remove these two files.

Regards
Peter Breitenlohner <peb@...>

[Akim Demaille]

(Karl and Jim, see below about gendocs, Stefano, see below
about Automake-OG).

Hi Peter, hi friends,

Le 6 août 2012 à 11:37, Peter Breitenlohner a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> the distributed bison-2.6.2 tarball contains the two stale files
> doc/bison.info-{1,2} from 2.6.1-dirty, and their existence in the source
> tree causes them uselessly to be installed.
>
> Please remove these two files.
>
> Regards
> Peter Breitenlohner <peb@...>

You are right: the shipped info file is self-contained,
since Bison includes

  AM_MAKEINFOFLAGS = --no-split

since 2003, but there are also trailing split files.

I am using some scripts and Makefile snippets from gnulib
that automate the generation and uploading of the various
forms of the documentation.

The gendocs.sh script does not pass --no-split to makeinfo,
and it is run in the builddir by maint.mk.  As a result,
my builddir contains the split files.

Unfortunately again, Automake does not clean the previous
files when the doc is updated (see below) so I have a
self-contained main info file, and stray split files.
And Automake ships everything blindly.

Amusingly enough the question of "why do split info files
still exist today" was recently posed, and the answer is
"mostly history, useless today".

So, Karl, Jim, and others, would you accept that gendocs.sh
stopped generating a compressed tarball of split info files,
but would rather ship a compressed --no-split file?

Stefano, I think the Texinfo -> makeinfo rules need fixing.
In Bison I have (builddir=$srcdir/_build/debug-48):

am__cwd=`pwd` && CDPATH="${ZSH_VERSION+.}:" && cd ../../../doc && \
rm -rf $backupdir && mkdir $backupdir && \
if (/bin/sh /Users/akim/src/gnu/bison-2.5/build-aux/missing --run makeinfo --version) >/dev/null 2>&1; then \
  for f in ../../../doc/bison.info ../../../doc/bison.info-[0-9] ../../../doc/bison.info-[0-9][0-9] ../../../doc/bison.i[0-9] ../../../doc/bison.i[0-9][0-9]; do \
    if test -f $f; then mv $f $backupdir; restore=mv; else :; fi; \
  done; \
else :; fi && \

i.e., we "cd ../../../doc" and then the "backup" procedure,
which should also remove previous info files, includes
the ../../../doc bits again…  So of course, the old files
are not moved away.

[Jim Meyering]

Akim Demaille wrote:
...
> So, Karl, Jim, and others, would you accept that gendocs.sh
> stopped generating a compressed tarball of split info files,
> but would rather ship a compressed --no-split file?

Sounds fine to me, but gendocs.sh is Karl's baby ;-)

[Akim Demaille]

Le 1 sept. 2012 à 17:12, Jim Meyering a écrit :

> Akim Demaille wrote:
> ...
>> So, Karl, Jim, and others, would you accept that gendocs.sh
>> stopped generating a compressed tarball of split info files,
>> but would rather ship a compressed --no-split file?
>
> Sounds fine to me, but gendocs.sh is Karl's baby ;-)

Hi all,

I have not received answers on this regard, yet it looks like Karl
changed gendocs to pass --no-split to makeinfo by default.  Maybe
we could also pass the info.gz file?  A tarball for a single file
sounds overkill, yet maintaining backward compatibility is certainly
nice.

[Karl Berry]

Hi Akim,

    I have not received answers on this regard,

I did answer.  I replied to bug-automake, which all interested parties
are on (and which is actually the relevant list, as opposed to all of
these :) on September 2.  Copied below.

    we could also pass the info.gz file?

I see no reason to pass both info.tar.gz and info.gz.  If someone wants
to send me a usable patch to pass only info.gz in the now-usual case of
one info file, that is fine, but I don't want to spend more time on this
myself.  Changes might be needed in the template text too.

karl


From: karl@... (Karl Berry)
To: bug-automake@...
Subject: Re: bison 2.6.2 contains stale info files
In-Reply-To: <AA9B89FE-7813-4D85-ACBE-35859A6191AB@...>

    So, Karl, Jim, and others, would you accept that gendocs.sh
    stopped generating a compressed tarball of split info files,
    but would rather ship a compressed --no-split file?

Well, I hope meeting you halfway is ok ... I just changed gendocs.sh to
default to --no-split (can be overridden with a new --info option).

However, I kept it generating a tarball even though usually it will be a
tarball of one file, because otherwise, it would be necessary to detect
when split output was being generated, etc., etc.  Didn't seem worth the
trouble.

At least once you remove the stray split files now, they shouldn't
reappear ...

k

[Akim Demaille]

Le 20 sept. 2012 à 00:45, Karl Berry a écrit :

> Hi Akim,

Hi!

>    I have not received answers on this regard,
>
> I did answer.  I replied to bug-automake, which all interested parties
> are on

Actually, I'm not on this list, sorry.  The only Autotool list I'm
on is automake-ng.

> (and which is actually the relevant list, as opposed to all of
> these :)

Since I'm getting gendocs from gnulib, I thought it was its official
repository :/  As for bug-bison, that allows the reporter and the
readers of the list to see things are moving forward.

> on September 2.  Copied below.

Thanks a lot!

>    we could also pass the info.gz file?
>
> I see no reason to pass both info.tar.gz and info.gz.  If someone wants
> to send me a usable patch to pass only info.gz in the now-usual case of
> one info file, that is fine, but I don't want to spend more time on this
> myself.  Changes might be needed in the template text too.

OK.  Time permitting, I'll give it a try.