On Sat, Apr 05 2014, "W. Trevor King" <wking@tremily.us> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 10:05:31PM +0300, Tomi Ollila wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 05 2014, W. Trevor King wrote: >> > I use POSIX's 'command -v' [1] to find the path to rst2man… >> > >> > [1]: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/command.html >> >> … >> Except the reference to _POSIX_ page. One knows how consistent these >> specifications are; alternative: >> >> http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/command.html >> >> mentions additionally that -v flag >> "(On systems supporting the User Portability Utilities option.)" > > It's been a decade since POSIX 2004 ;). I'm not sure when the “User > Portability Utilities” caveat was removed, but I imagine most > POSIX-aspiring shells have -v support. Short of citing POSIX 2013, I > think I'd have to survey likely shells, and that seems even less > reliable. Maybe I'm missunderstanding your suggested change? > >> Also, we don't give such a treatment to other command either; I'd rather >> see RST2MAN=rst2man, RST2MAN=rst2man.py *and* RST2MAN= lines used >> instead -- the last to set RST2MAN to empty string instead of being unset. > > I'm fine with that. Alternatively, we could add an: > > if -n "${RST2MAN}" > > clause to the front of the detection code to allow users with oddball > scripts (maybe a null set) to override RST2MAN at configure time: > > $ RST2MAN=/my/custom/rst_to_man_converter ./configure > $ make > > instead of at make-invocation time: > > $ ./configure > $ make RST2MAN=/my/custom/rst_to_man_converter > > That would consolidate configuration around the 'config' call, and > make explicitly emptying the RST2MAN variable more clearly superfluous > (although I'm still fine with an explicit empty). > > Thoughts? If we did that, what about other commands, starting with sphinx-build (that is harder as python -m `sphinx.writers.manpage` fails even sphinx-build is set to something else; in case of sphinx, make SPHINXBUILD=sphinx-1.0-build works, for example in RHEL 6.2 machines... ...doing --with-rst2man=my.custom.rst_to_man_converter and make things look consistent would required considerable amount of development (and review!) time... ATM I'd just settle with plain command names and empty RST2MAN in case not found. > > Trevor > > -- More Thoughts? Tomi