make install fails, no mention of ronn dependency

[kb100]

When I tried to update to the newest version I make clean all which works fine. Then I sudo make install which gives

ronn -w -r i3blocks.1.
make: ronn: Command not 
Makefile:52: recipe for target 'i3blocks.1' 
make: *** [i3blocks.1] Error 127

I found ruby-ronn in the official debian repository which appears to fulfill the dependency, and now sudo make install works. I'm submitting this as an issue because there doesn't appear to be any mention in the documentation of needing to install ronn before trying to build.

[ghost]

Actually, this dependency was reverted 145850a. Not sure if we can get rid of that ronn dep. I haven't looked unfortunately.

[kb100]

I don't really know what travis.yml does, but the makefile definitely uses ronn still. I've been using i3blocks for a while and this is the first time I've seen it.

[bchretien]

ronn is used to generate the manual which is a dependency of make install (cf. 4c99f85). This should indeed appear in README.md.

[jpleau]

It would be nice to not have that dependency in official releases (tarballs).

For example people using autotools will run their macros and all that to get a working configure script in their release tarballs, so we don't have to run autoconf and friends.

[vivien]

Indeed, I removed the versionning of i3blocks.1 because it felt redundant with the source i3blocks.1.ronn, and I noticed ruby-ronn is officially packaged in the most common distribution.

@jpleau are you suggesting I should version i3blocks.1 back?

[jpleau]

Oh no I think the way you did it is correct.

What I was suggesting was to add the i3blocks.1 (generated from ruby-ronn) in the released tarballs.

It would allow people to run "make install" when downloading an official release, without requiring them to install both ruby and ruby-ronn. But people fetching from git would still have build the man page.

This is similar to a project using autotools: They will not version the "configure" / "Makefile.in" files, but they will include them when they build release tarballs.

Does that make more sense ?

[vivien]

Yes it does make sense!
I'll have to work on a make release target then.