Re: Request for jgroff help
On Thu, 24 May 2001 at 11:58:52 +0900, Fumitoshi UKAI wrote:
> At Wed, 23 May 2001 21:34:10 +0100,
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > That's fantastic. I'll revert all traces of the old patch from my
> > sources so that yours applies cleanly.
> I found one bug in my previous patch. That one failed assertion
> on src/roff/troff/node.cc line 3804 (node *word_space_node::copy())
> Fixed version is groff_1.17-0.0.2.jgroff in the same directory.
I think my main problem is still that the patch is very distinct from
the main sources. What happens if you just remove all the #ifdef NIPPON
... #endif blocks apart from that in eucmac.h itself, and pick one
sensible alternative where there are #ifdef NIPPON ... #else ... #endif
blocks? Since the GNU standards say that the range of configuration
options in GNU programs should be limited, this would be the best way to
start persuading upstream to take the patch.
I haven't decided yet how this is going to interact with my new
packaging (see bug #53225). The programs in groff-base will be compiled
with Japanese support, but since the Japanese fonts etc. are very large
I doubt they'll go in the base system package. Depending on what
fraction of the groff package they turn out to be, they'll either go in
groff or in a separate groff-ja plug-in package.
Colin Watson [email@example.com]