GNU bug report logs - #49947
Backtrace on "@abbr{...}" in package description

Previous Next

Package: guix;

Reported by: Sarah Morgensen <iskarian <at> mgsn.dev>

Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2021 00:02:02 UTC

Severity: normal

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 49947 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#49947; Package guix. (Mon, 09 Aug 2021 00:02:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Sarah Morgensen <iskarian <at> mgsn.dev>:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to bug-guix <at> gnu.org. (Mon, 09 Aug 2021 00:02:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Sarah Morgensen <iskarian <at> mgsn.dev>
To: bug-guix <at> gnu.org
Subject: Backtrace on "@abbr{...}" in package description
Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2021 17:01:31 -0700
Hello Guix,

The Texinfo manual says [0] that I should be able to use @abbr, and
prefer it over @acronym when the text is not all capital letters, but I
get a backtrace when I try to use it in a package description:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
Backtrace:
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1752:10 16 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
In unknown file:
          15 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 7fa49b8ea0c0>)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
    724:2 14 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handle?>)
In ice-9/eval.scm:
    619:8 13 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7fa49b8f0c80>)))
In guix/ui.scm:
   2185:7 12 (run-guix . _)
  2148:10 11 (run-guix-command _ . _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1752:10 10 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
In guix/scripts/package.scm:
    906:9  9 (_)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
    634:9  8 (for-each #<procedure 7fa49878c9e8 at guix/scripts/pac?> ?)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1747:15  7 (with-exception-handler #<procedure 7fa4899fd900 at ic?> ?)
In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
    634:9  6 (for-each #<procedure 7fa489a05520 at guix/scripts/pac?> ?)
In guix/ui.scm:
  1558:14  5 (package->recutils _ #<output: file /dev/pts/2> _ # _ # _)
  1432:23  4 (texi->plain-text _)
In texinfo.scm:
  1132:22  3 (parse _)
   967:36  2 (loop #<input: string 7fa489a08770> (*fragment*) #<pro?> ?)
     92:2  1 (command-spec _)
In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
  1685:16  0 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)

ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
Throw to key `parser-error' with args `(#f "Unknown command" abbr)'.
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

If this isn't an oversight, and not all Texinfo markup is supported,
that should be noted in the manual.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/software/texinfo/manual/texinfo/texinfo.html#g_t_0040abbr

--
Sarah




Information forwarded to bug-guix <at> gnu.org:
bug#49947; Package guix. (Mon, 09 Aug 2021 10:25:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #8 received at 49947 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
To: Sarah Morgensen <iskarian <at> mgsn.dev>
Cc: 49947 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#49947: Backtrace on "@abbr{...}" in package description
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2021 12:24:17 +0200
Hi Sarah,

Sarah Morgensen <iskarian <at> mgsn.dev> skribis:

> The Texinfo manual says [0] that I should be able to use @abbr, and
> prefer it over @acronym when the text is not all capital letters, but I
> get a backtrace when I try to use it in a package description:
>
> Backtrace:
> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>   1752:10 16 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
> In unknown file:
>           15 (apply-smob/0 #<thunk 7fa49b8ea0c0>)
> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>     724:2 14 (call-with-prompt _ _ #<procedure default-prompt-handle?>)
> In ice-9/eval.scm:
>     619:8 13 (_ #(#(#<directory (guile-user) 7fa49b8f0c80>)))
> In guix/ui.scm:
>    2185:7 12 (run-guix . _)
>   2148:10 11 (run-guix-command _ . _)
> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>   1752:10 10 (with-exception-handler _ _ #:unwind? _ # _)
> In guix/scripts/package.scm:
>     906:9  9 (_)
> In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
>     634:9  8 (for-each #<procedure 7fa49878c9e8 at guix/scripts/pac?> ?)
> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>   1747:15  7 (with-exception-handler #<procedure 7fa4899fd900 at ic?> ?)
> In srfi/srfi-1.scm:
>     634:9  6 (for-each #<procedure 7fa489a05520 at guix/scripts/pac?> ?)
> In guix/ui.scm:
>   1558:14  5 (package->recutils _ #<output: file /dev/pts/2> _ # _ # _)
>   1432:23  4 (texi->plain-text _)
> In texinfo.scm:
>   1132:22  3 (parse _)
>    967:36  2 (loop #<input: string 7fa489a08770> (*fragment*) #<pro?> ?)
>      92:2  1 (command-spec _)
> In ice-9/boot-9.scm:
>   1685:16  0 (raise-exception _ #:continuable? _)
>
> ice-9/boot-9.scm:1685:16: In procedure raise-exception:
> Throw to key `parser-error' with args `(#f "Unknown command" abbr)'.
>
> If this isn't an oversight, and not all Texinfo markup is supported,
> that should be noted in the manual.

Oh right, Guile’s Texinfo implementation doesn’t support 100% of Texinfo
markup.

We could write it down in the Guix manual, but we could also improve
Guile’s Texinfo modules, especially since such additions should be
relatively simple.

Thanks,
Ludo’.




This bug report was last modified 2 years and 232 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.