View Issue Details
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0005138||GNUnet||build process||public||2017-09-24 13:10||2019-02-28 11:17|
|Priority||normal||Severity||feature||Reproducibility||have not tried|
|Target Version||0.11.0||Fixed in Version||0.11.0|
|Summary||0005138: decide on the minimal required Texinfo version|
|Description||Someone using Debian 8 reported they are using texlive 5.2.|
Now texinfo-5.2 has a release date of 2013-09-26 19:17.
GNU Guix and GuixSD uses Texinfo 6.5 (which is what I've been using to build the documentation). Gentoo, another reported problem system, has marked texinfo-6.3 as stable, 6.4 + 6.5 are still "unstable" in their dictionary. 6.3 was released on 2016-09-10 16:31.
I think it's unreasonable to demand support for a software released in 2013 with 1 major release number increase between then and now. However we also need to consider universal support.
I can build with 4.13a, 5.2, 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 on my system, but we need to set a minimal requirement.
(--Ideally this is achieved with votes of people (packagers / package contributors to operating systems) on the minimal versions.--)
We also need Texlive, which is currently just assuming the full distribution of Texlive and on my end in version "2017".
|Tags||No tags attached.|
I forgot that we already have 'Texlive >= 2012' for gnunet-bcd. Wheezy Debian (oldstable) is still on some 2012 version of Texlive. Personally I think encouraging to keep very old software versions around is not very good use, but I'll try to check the documentation building against Texlive-2012. Should work out alright.
As per feedback and discussion in different places, trying to support Texinfo-5.2 is the temporary decision. Only building will show if this holds to be true.
||My general opinion is requiring Debian stable is generally totally acceptable, and in exceptions we can even require something more recent (if justified).|
Yes, I agree.
The only action left on this bug is now to provide a check in the build system for it.
> The only action left on this bug is now to provide a check in the build system for it.
Is this fixed? I can't recall if I fixed it or not.
||The check in the build system is still missing.|
I am confident that https://gnunet.org/git/gnunet.git/commit/?id=62355a754eb4f3e8aa9e9e514ae1bb0e28f51 is a (first) solution to fix the "detect version" requirement.
In general: WTF? comparing string to integer in m4, which was my first attempt, as a result of grep + cut + --version and "5.2", is way too annoying. Why don't we have min/max versions in the MISSING_PROG macro? Annoyance^10.
If this doesn't work, file new bugs.
|2017-09-24 13:10||ng0||New Issue|
|2017-09-24 13:13||ng0||Description Updated||View Revisions|
|2017-09-24 13:14||ng0||Description Updated||View Revisions|
|2017-09-25 10:48||ng0||Note Added: 0012434|
|2017-09-25 10:48||ng0||Assigned To||=> ng0|
|2017-09-25 10:48||ng0||Status||new => assigned|
|2017-09-25 10:49||ng0||Status||assigned => acknowledged|
|2017-09-25 19:40||ng0||Summary||package contributors votes needed to decide on the minimal required Texinfo + Texlive version => decide on the minimal required Texinfo version|
|2017-09-25 19:40||ng0||Description Updated||View Revisions|
|2017-09-27 16:10||ng0||Status||acknowledged => confirmed|
|2017-09-27 20:20||ng0||Relationship added||child of 0005141|
|2017-10-02 18:57||ng0||Status||confirmed => assigned|
|2017-10-04 15:27||Christian Grothoff||Note Added: 0012462|
|2017-10-08 16:10||ng0||Note Added: 0012467|
|2018-01-21 13:54||ng0||Note Added: 0012816|
|2018-06-26 08:27||Christian Grothoff||Note Added: 0013078|
|2018-10-30 19:03||ng0||Status||assigned => resolved|
|2018-10-30 19:03||ng0||Resolution||open => fixed|
|2018-10-30 19:03||ng0||Fixed in Version||=> SVN HEAD|
|2018-10-30 19:03||ng0||Note Added: 0013299|
|2019-02-12 09:20||Christian Grothoff||Target Version||=> 0.11.0|
|2019-02-16 11:54||Christian Grothoff||Fixed in Version||SVN HEAD => 0.11.0|
|2019-02-28 11:17||Christian Grothoff||Status||resolved => closed|