Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Rob Browning <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:25:09 -0500
> 
> An alternate approach would be to still build Emacs twice, but put all
> the bits that the two trees have in common into an emacs21-common
> package.  Then the emacs21 and emacs21-nox packages might not need to
> be much more than the actual application binary.  However this
> wouldn't be safe if the files in the with and without-x install trees
> are likely to be different in important ways (i.e. different sets of
> files, binary incompatibilities in .elc files, etc.).

There should not be any such incompatibilities.  The .elc files could
be slightly different, but they should work at run time anyway.

> Another way it might not be safe is if add-on emacs packages, like
> calc, psgml, etc. could detect whether they were being compiled by an
> X or non-X Emacs and generate differing .elc files as a result.

I think this issue doesn't exist.

> Accordingly I wanted to check with you upstream and see if you
> considered this a viable approach

FWIW, I think you should indeed put all the *.el and *.elc files into
a common package.  If disk storage is a problem, you could have all
the X-specific *.el/*.elc files in a separate package, but I'd rather
think the savings will be minimal, since most Lisp files are not
specific to any display type.