Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi> writes: > In this series IMO the patches 1-4: > > id:8d518408f2da8bc96ae3123f05791142da26b9bc.1396718720.git.wking@tremily.us > id:543aee63407956e60f85dc11a2d25855e98c10c3.1396718720.git.wking@tremily.us > id:5e4509ab08699afe2681110fb35075e1d0bbdc7e.1396718720.git.wking@tremily.us > id:c5ec510ac25c867ad600c475a0070a003440a4b8.1396718720.git.wking@tremily.us > > could go in as those are. 5: > > id:adce76bb9a0ca728d856da4ecaf6b282e22e7440.1396718720.git.wking@tremily.us > > if, for consistency reason (we don't use absolute paths with other commands > either), rst2man/rst2man.py is used as is (and commit message adjusted > accordingly). I've queued 1-4 for merging. Any patches that might break the build (e.g. 5 and 6 in this series) have to go in pretty quick if they are to be in 0.18; patch 7 we can sort out during the freeze. I'm not sure I completely understand the state of the discussion around patch 5. Personally I don't like either undefined or empty RST2MAN as a boolean a priori. I'd rather keep HAVE_RST2MAN for consistency. d