[Nut-upsdev] NUT v2.8.4 coming up

[Greg Troxel]

Jim Klimov via Nut-upsdev <nut-upsdev at alioth-lists.debian.net> writes:

> FWIW, I did merge the previously queued "small PRs",

Great, thanks.

> now probably gotta
> figure out what Greg found with pkgsrc's `sed` (or await his PR with a fix
> that would work everywhere - can't reproduce the problem so far), and
> planned changes will be done.

This is not about pkgsrc's sed; it's about the sed that is part of the
NetBSD base system, which is believed to conform to POSIX.  (When
building under pkgsrc, the base sed is used even if gsed is installed,
as part of repeatable build hygiene.)

I am 99% sure that the problem is this, from doc/Makefile.am, building
ChangeLog.adoc from ChangeLog:

  -e 's,^\(\s\s*\)\([0-9]\),\1{empty}\2,g'

resulting in

  "s,^\(\s\s*\)\([0-9]\),\ ..."


I think the problem is that  \s is a GNU beyond-POSIX extension and the
standards-compliant way to write this is

  -e 's,^\([:blank:][:blank:]*\)\([0-9]\),\1{empty}2\,g' \

instead.


(In general, I find the sed magic surrounding docs builds too hard to
understand, even for someone who has used sed, probably starting with
Seventh Edition.)

> On one hand, a build is expected to deliver man pages. Historically *roff
> files were directly edited and served by projects; nowadays it is asciidoc
> or similar, rendered into man pages as one of many output formats.  Dist
> tarballs include those page files so they can be installed even where
> asciidoc renderer is not available. So some options manage this part.

ok, but which options actually do what precisely?  Does --without-doc
say "don't build them" or "don't install them"?  What happens if you
give --without-doc, and you don't, or do, have them built?  One could
make an argument that "don't build them, and install what should have
been built into distfile, erroring out if not there" is mild/acceptable,
resulting in a correct package.  And that "don't build and don't
install" is, while useful to some, an instruction that results in a
defective install.

This is not understandable from reading configure.ac.

> Another issue is the codes assigned to man page sections in different OSes
> - this was previously bolted to what is seen in Linux and FreeBSD; now can
> be amended for package builds (especially on other platforms), to avoid
> clumsy distro-specific patch files or scripts in their recipes.

sure, good to have --do-foo to accomodate.  So far that's not my issue!