GNU bug report logs -
#2151
23.0.90; Building the 23.0.90 pretest recompiles Lisp files
Previous Next
Reported by: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 06:15:03 UTC
Severity: minor
Fixed in version 25.1
Done: Glenn Morris <rgm <at> gnu.org>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
Full log
Message #80 received at 2151 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com (full text, mbox):
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 06:07:58 +0200
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> Cc: 2151 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
>
> > From: Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>
> > Cc: 2151 <at> emacsbugs.donarmstrong.com
> > Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 17:49:16 -0500
> >
> > >> I'd rather not if the patch I suggested works. Does it?
> >
> > > Maybe it does, but it isn't meant to solve the problem at hand, as it
> > > builds bootstrap-emacs unconditionally.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean. It solves the title problem "pretest recompiles
> > Lisp files". AFAIK the only thing it does unnecessarily is to dump
> > Emacs twice.
>
> Yes. And the Right Solution (IMO) is to invoke src/Makefile with
> `boot' argument empty, which would only dump once and not recompile
> anything.
A new idea: can we avoid the `boot=bootstrap-emacs$(EXEEXT)' thing in
top-level Makefile.in by testing for some file that is only present
when Emacs is built out of CVS? For example, the `admin' directory is
not in the pretest/release tarballs; can we test for its existence and
invoke sub-Make's with `boot=""' if `admin' is not there?
There's one other reason for compiling Lisp files during the build, it
is this fragment from the top-level Makefile.in:
# Subdirectories to make recursively. `lisp' is not included
# because the compiled lisp files are part of the distribution.
# leim is not included because it needs special handling.
#
# Actually, we now include `lisp' as well, since the compiled files
# are not included any more in case of bootstrap or in case Emacs was
# checked out from a VCS.
SUBDIR = lib-src src lisp
The second part gives the rationale for adding `lisp' to the list, but
that rationale is not valid for when Emacs is built from a pretest or
release tarball. Is it okay to avoid recursing into `lisp' in that
case, again by testing the existence of `admin' or some such?
This bug report was last modified 10 years and 315 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.