uudoc: move manpage generation away from the binary

[aaron-ang]

close #4464.

Also moved man page generation test cases to a new file: test_uudoc.rs

Is there a simpler command to generate the man page instead of cargo run --bin uudoc --features uudoc -- manpage <utility>?

[github-actions[bot]]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/misc/tee (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)

[github-actions[bot]]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/misc/tee (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skip an intermittent issue tests/timeout/timeout (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)

[aaron-ang]

hi @tertsdiepraam @sylvestre, I think my implementation is close. I will need your help to review and improve this PR. Thanks!

[oech3]

Would you resolve conflicts?

[aaron-ang]

Would you resolve conflicts?

yes, I will work on it

[oech3]

Thankyou.

Is there a simpler command to generate the man page instead of cargo run --bin uudoc --features uudoc -- manpage ?

I think README.md should guide to use uudoc binary directly. I think wrapping command by cargo might cause rebuild if we used different profile at building.

[github-actions[bot]]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/misc/tee (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skip an intermittent issue tests/tail/overlay-headers (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)

[oech3]

Failing tests (with non useful message for me)

[codspeed-hq[bot]]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #8513 will not alter performance

_{Comparing aaron-ang:migrate-manpage (2919027) with main (905629b)}

Summary

✅ 106 untouched
⏩ 73 skipped[^skipped]

[^skipped]: 73 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports.

[github-actions[bot]]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skipping an intermittent issue tests/tail/overlay-headers (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/timeout/timeout (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)

[github-actions[bot]]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/misc/tee (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/tail/overlay-headers (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)

[github-actions[bot]]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/misc/tee (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)

[github-actions[bot]]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skipping an intermittent issue tests/timeout/timeout (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)

[github-actions[bot]]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/tail/overlay-headers (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)

[github-actions[bot]]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skipping an intermittent issue tests/tail/overlay-headers (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)

[sylvestre]

looks great, some minor comments

[github-actions[bot]]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/misc/tee (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)

[github-actions[bot]]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skipping an intermittent issue tests/tail/overlay-headers (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/timeout/timeout (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)

[github-actions[bot]]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skipping an intermittent issue tests/misc/tee (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/timeout/timeout (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)

[github-actions[bot]]

GNU testsuite comparison:

Skip an intermittent issue tests/misc/tee (fails in this run but passes in the 'main' branch)
Skipping an intermittent issue tests/timeout/timeout (passes in this run but fails in the 'main' branch)

[sylvestre]

well done!

[oech3]

@aaron-ang Q. When packager discards uudoc binary at release, Should packager use same release profile with coreutils too?

Is building uudoc with debug and coreutils with release improve build time? or slower because of missing caches?

[aaron-ang]

@aaron-ang Q. When packager discards uudoc binary at release, Should packager use same release profile with coreutils too?

Is building uudoc with debug and coreutils with release improve build time? or slower because of missing caches?

I believe building with the same profile will be much faster since they can share compilation artifacts. Most of the compilation happens at coreutils, not uudoc. The marginal increase in build time of compiling uudoc should be small compared to discarding and building it in debug.

[oech3]

Thankyou. I feel uudoc takes time at clean build, but understood that current form is optimal.