Re: [patch] Fix gdb/doc/ PDF build on Fedora Rawhide==F-29

[Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>]

On 2018-03-31 13:32, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> on Fedora Rawhide==F-29 PDF build fails with:
> 	https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/2102/26052102/build.log
> 	texi2dvi --pdf  -I ../../../gdb/doc/../mi -I ../../../gdb/doc \
> 		../../../gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> 	! I can't find file `texinfo.tex'.
> 
> TBH I do not see how the file could be found in earlier versions.  Also 
> both
> F-29 and F-28 have texinfo-tex-6.5-3.fc28.x86_64 while in F-28 it still 
> builds
> fine but in F-29 it does not - so apparently it depends on some other 
> package.
> 
> But I did not investigate why as IMO the patch below is a logical one.
> 
> OK for check-in?
> 
> 
> Jan

Hi Jan,

 From the logs of building it on F27, it is picked up at

   /usr/share/texlive/texmf-local/texmf-compat/tex/texinfo/texinfo.tex

   $ readlink -f 
/usr/share/texlive/texmf-local/texmf-compat/tex/texinfo/texinfo.tex
   /usr/share/texmf/tex/texinfo/texinfo.tex

which is probably in the default latex include dirs, I guess because of 
this line in texmf.cnf:

   TEXMFLOCAL = $TEXMFROOT/texmf-local//

The directory /usr/share/texlive/texmf-local exists on F27 and F28 but 
not on F29.  So the F29 config references a directory that does not 
exist.  Re-creating it and updating the tex hash:

   # mkdir /usr/share/texlive/texmf-local
   # ln -s ../../texmf /usr/share/texlive/texmf-local/texmf-compat
   # texhash

makes it work for me on F29.  So maybe there's actually a bug in the F29 
version of the texinfo package that you should report?  I have no idea 
if that change in the packaging was intended or not, but having the 
texinfo.tex file excluded from the default latex search path will 
probably break anything trying to use texinfo.

As for the version of texinfo.tex in the source tree, my guess is 
(correct me if I'm wrong) that it was put there in a time where it was 
not so readily available as a package in distros.  But realistically, 
today, everyone picks it up from their distro's texinfo package (which 
is proven by the fact that you didn't need to set TEXINPUTS to find the 
in-tree version until a distro package broke).

If we can now expect people to pick up texinfo.tex from their distro, 
then I think we should instead remove SET_TEXINPUTS altogether.

Simon