Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] A small Texinfo refinement

[Sandra Loosemore <sandra.loosemore@siemens.com>]

On 3/10/23 10:51, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> On 3/10/23 01:50, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>>> On 9 Mar 2023, at 23:35, Sandra Loosemore via Gcc-patches
>>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 3/9/23 01:26, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>>> SLES 12 has texinfo 4.13a, SLES 15 has texinfo 6.5.  We still
>>>> provide up-to-date GCC for SLES 12 but we can probably manage in
>>>> some ways when the texinfo requirement gets bumped.
>>>
>>> OK, this seems to be the oldest version anyone admits to actually
>>> using.  I built the manual with Arsen's patches using 4.13a; the
>>> build was successful, and I didn't see any obvious issues with the
>>> @gol removal in either the PDF or HTML output, so I think we are OK
>>> for backward compatibility.
>>
>> FWIW macOS/Darwin (as delivered by Apple) is stuck on 4.8 (and,
>> presumably, very unlikely to advance), but I would expect most macOS
>> FOSS users have something newer installed, either self-built or via
>> macposrts/homebrew etc. so the “admits to actually using” applies
>> here too I think (personally, I am using 6.7 but not for any special
>> reason other than it was current when I updated  my local toolset).
>> So I think Darwin can also manage with a newer requirement.
> 
> Well, with 4.8 being too old to produce PDF output, that does kind of 
> kill my idea of replacing the existing requirement for a specific 
> Texinfo version with "the version that comes with your OS distribution 
> is good enough".  :-(
> 
> AFAIK we have not knowingly changed any specific requirements beyond the 
> stated 4.7 and 4.9 for PDF output, but it concerns me that nobody is 
> likely to be using versions that old on a regular basis to make sure 
> they continue to work and we haven't unknowingly introduced dependencies 
> on newer Texinfo features.
> 
> Anyway, I think I will leave the existing requirement alone for now, and 
> just add a note that newer versions produce better output.

Oh, I need to take that back -- looking now, it's 4.8 for PDF output, 
not 4.9 like I was thinking before I had enough caffeine in my 
bloodstream.  I'll leave the version check in place but add some text 
suggesting a more recent version, anyway.

-Sandra