[PATCH util-macros] XORG_WITH_GROFF: add HAVE_GROFF_HTML Automake conditional

[Gaetan Nadon]

On Sat, 2010-06-19 at 08:50 -0700, Dan Nicholson wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Gaetan Nadon <memsize at videotron.ca> wrote:
> > Groff uses grohtml to generate html output format. This program, in turn,
> > uses a number of pnm* commands from the netpbm package, psselect
> > from the psutils package and the ghostscript package.
> >
> > These are independently installed, so they could be missing.
> > A check is made to ensure those dependencies are installed.
> > If not, the makefile can use the conditional to supress the target.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Gaetan Nadon <memsize at videotron.ca>
> > ---
> >  xorg-macros.m4.in |   18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/xorg-macros.m4.in b/xorg-macros.m4.in
> > index a8e12ed..a10f80b 100644
> > --- a/xorg-macros.m4.in
> > +++ b/xorg-macros.m4.in
> > @@ -552,6 +552,12 @@ AM_CONDITIONAL([HAVE_DOXYGEN], [test "$have_doxygen" = yes])
> >  # --with-groff:         'yes' user instructs the module to use groff
> >  #               'no' user instructs the module not to use groff
> >  #
> > +# Added in version 1.9.0:
> > +# HAVE_GROFF_HTML: groff has dependencies to output HTML format:
> > +#                 pnmcut pnmcrop pnmtopng pnmtops from the netpbm package.
> > +#                 psselect from the psutils package.
> > +#                 the ghostcript package.
> > +#
> >  # If the user sets the value of GROFF, AC_PATH_PROG skips testing the path.
> >  #
> >  # OS and distros often splits groff in a basic and full package, the former
> > @@ -591,6 +597,7 @@ elif test "x$use_groff" = x"no" ; then
> >  else
> >    AC_MSG_ERROR([--with-groff expects 'yes' or 'no'])
> >  fi
> > +
> >  # We have groff, test for the presence of the macro packages
> >  if test "x$have_groff" = x"yes"; then
> >     AC_MSG_CHECKING([for ${GROFF} -ms macros])
> > @@ -608,9 +615,20 @@ if test "x$have_groff" = x"yes"; then
> >     fi
> >     AC_MSG_RESULT([$groff_mm_works])
> >  fi
> > +
> > +# We have groff, test for HTML dependencies
> > +if test "x$have_groff" = x"yes"; then
> > +   AC_PATH_PROGS(GS_PATH, [gs gswin32c])
> > +   AC_PATH_PROG(PNMTOPNG_PATH, [pnmtopng])
> > +   AC_PATH_PROG(PSSELECT_PATH, [psselect])
> > +fi
> 
> Thanks for looking into this, but I don't think I agree with this
> approach. 

That's ok. I vaguely remember drawing a line there when writing the
original macro. 
I am somewhat spoiled by my distro where all the stuff I need is already
installed. 
When I dig  more I find that groff depends on netbpm, psutils and
ghostscript.
These are separately installed packages. 

The patch I did amounts to checking the integrity of the platform
installed software.
Not something we should be doing, as users of groff. On the other we try
to be helpful
to our users when things go wrong.

Had you been the author of the patch, I might have made the same
objection.
Infinite loop :-)


> I don't think we want to be checking the internal details of
> grohtml. It would probably be preferred to just try to generate html
> from a simple source file and see if it produced useful results.

Are you suggesting using another tool? 

> However, if we do want to just check the program, I'd suggest
> borrowing heavily from groff's internal GROFF_HTML_PROGRAMS macro.
> See:
> 

Exactly what I did. I simplified for our situation. I picked one
command per package rather than checking all of them.

> http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/groff/m4/groff.m4?root=groff&view=markup
> 
> --
> Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20100619/054fee89/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20100619/054fee89/attachment.pgp>