On 9/1/22 19:21, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 9/1/22 10:58, Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches wrote:
>> On 9/1/22 16:43, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>> On 9/1/22 05:51, Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Currently, we cannot build gdb without makeinfo installed.
>>>>
>>>> It would be convenient to work around this by using the configure flag
>>>> MAKEINFO=/usr/bin/true or some such, but that doesn't work because top-level
>>>> configure requires a makeinfo of at least version 4.7, and that version check
>>>> fails for /usr/bin/true, so we end up with MAKEINFO=missing instead.
>>>>
>>>> Work around this by adding a script gdb/contrib/makeinfo-dummy.sh that can be
>>>> used instead, like so:
>>>> ...
>>>> $ ./src/configure MAKEINFO=$src/gdb/contrib/makeinfo-dummy.sh
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> The script merely prints the version string that satisfies the version check
>>>> in $src/configure.
>>>>
>>>> Tested on x86_64-linux, with makeinfo removed.
>>>>
>>>> Any comments?
>>>
>>> I wouldn't mind having this if it helps you.  This file would probably
>>> belong in $top_level/contrib more than $top_level/gdb/contrib.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> thanks for the review.
>>
>> Agreed, but does that also mean submitting to gcc-patches instead?  All the other scripts in <binutils-gdb>/contrib seems to be copies from <gcc>/contrib.
> 
> IMO, it would be fine to add a file like this just in binutils-gdb, and
> if someone wants it in gcc they can copy it there.  When making changes
> to files existing in both repos, then yeah it's better to involve gcc to
> so that they stay in sync.
> 
>>
>>> Just in case that would work for you, in this case I have been using:
>>>
>>>     $ ./configure
>>>     $ make MAKEINFO=/bin/true
>>>
>>> and that worked fine so far.
>>
>> I see, I suppose that'll work as well, I didn't think of that.
>>
>> I guess it matters more for me to have a documented way of dealing with this, than some specific solution.  I ran into this today, knew I worked around this before, but didn't remember how.  I'm hoping that having this file in the repo will be something that is easy to find back and  use.
>>
>> It would be possible to handle 'true' in the toplevel configure, which would make configure MAKEINFO=true work, but that would have to go past gcc-patches review, and I'm not sure if it's worth the effort to try this, given my suspicion that it will not be accepted.
> 
> Also more efforts, but what we would want is a --disable-doc or
> --without-makeinfo configure switch, I think.

I gave the --without-makeinfo a try.

WDYT?

Thanks,
- Tom