On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 9:18 AM Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Since xindy isn't really something that can be relied upon, is it > possible (or reasonable) to do this globally in our sphinx packages? > Even when it was enabled, it was architecture-limited which would > force that limitation to propagate down to potentially anything that > used sphinx. (xindy is written in LISP and builds with clisp. There's > a certain irony in that Jerry is also a maintainer of clisp.) Yes, I am, and nobody ever mentioned xindy problems to me. There were no bugs filed against clisp, no email messages to me, nothing. If I'd known about these problems, I would have helped look into them. > I do think that the disabling of xindy was supposed to be only temporary > so I think it could be re-enabled, but having it off probably makes > texlive maintenance easier. The proper solution, I guess, is to fix > clisp to work on s390x and then fix whatever issues prevent xindy from > being enabled all the time. I think it would help to remove it from > texlive-base entirely and let it stand on its own. That way issues with > it wouldn't prevent texlive-base from building. The clisp issue with s390x has been on my TODO list for a long time. I've been using most of my Fedora time to hunt down bugs that keep other packages from building at all. I seem to be reaching the end of that, at last, so I'll try to figure this out next. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
