Subject: Re: HEADS UP: texinfo-4.7 imported
To: Yong-Jhen Hong <yongjhen@fastmailbox.net>
From: Thomas Klausner <wiz@NetBSD.org>
List: current-users
Date: 07/13/2004 17:21:16
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 10:45:28PM +0800, Yong-Jhen Hong wrote:
> This error occurs during my recent build, and it seems related to
> the new texinfo import:
> 
>     #    create  libbfd/bfd.info
>     /home/xxxx/netbsd/src/../hpcarm/tools/bin/nbmakeinfo 
> -I/home/xxxx/netbsd/src/gnu/dist/binutils/bfd/doc --no-split -o bfd.info 
> /home/xxxx/netbsd/src/gnu/dist/binutils/bfd/doc/bfd.texinfo
>     bfd.info: Bad address
>     bfd.info: Bad address
>     makeinfo: Removing output file `bfd.info' due to errors; use 
> --force to preserve.
> 
>     *** Failed target:  bfd.info
>     *** Failed command: 
> /home/xxxx/netbsd/src/../hpcarm/tools/bin/nbmakeinfo 
> -I/home/xxxx/netbsd/src/gnu/dist/binutils/bfd/doc --no-split -o bfd.info 
> /home/xxxx/netbsd/src/gnu/dist/binutils/bfd/doc/bfd.texinfo
>     *** Error code 1
> 
>     Stop.
>     nbmake: stopped in /home/xxxx/netbsd/src/gnu/lib/libbfd
> 
> I need to comment the following lines to make it:
> 
>     src/gnu/dist/binutils/bfd/doc/bfd.texinfo:
>       Line 331: @printindex cp
>       Line 348: @contents

There are other solutions too:
. remove the bfd.info* files in src/gnu/dist/binutils/bfd/doc
. regenerate them with makeinfo-4.6 or newer

The problem seems to be that makeinfo looks at the index of
the info file that was generated with makeinfo-4.3, even though
it is called with --no-split, and doesn't like what it finds.

I can think of three solutions:
1) fix makeinfo to not do that (I've mailed bugs-texinfo about it)
2) remove *.info* below gnu/dist/binutils
3) replace *.info* below gnu/dist/binutils with versions that
   were generated by newer makeinfos

I'm not completely sure that the info files are not needed,
but when I just now removed them, the host tools build still worked,
and the info files that get installed are generated from the
.texinfo files anyway, so 2) should be safe.

Any comments on which way we should go?

Cheers,
 Thomas