[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A better autogen.sh

From: joakim
Subject: Re: A better autogen.sh
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:47:58 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 02:08:21 -0700
>> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
>> CC: address@hidden, address@hidden
>> On 03/16/2011 01:10 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> >> > The src/config.in file is one example of these #ifdef-like
>> >> > constructs.  The main reason we put src/config.in in the
>> >> > repository, and keep track of it and commit it by hand,
>> >> > is for the MS Windows port.
>> > It was never because of MS-DOS.  This file was there from day one.
>> > This is the first time removal of this file is considered.
>> The idea has been considered before, I expect.
> I'm not getting younger, and my memory is not getting better, but I
> cannot recall such a discussion in the past nor a decision to drop the
> idea because of non-Posix platforms.
>> Right now, the file is in the repository only because of the MS-DOS
>> port, and that suggests that the repository copy should be moved to
>> the msdos/ subdirectory.
> No, right now the file is in the repository because it was always
> there, and we are discussing whether to remove it.
>> Whenever maintainers feel it necessary, they could autogenerate a
>> new version, copy it into the msdos/ subdirectory by hand, and
>> commit the result.  That should be enough to address concerns
>> about the MS-DOS port.
> It will be enough if someone takes upon themselves to perform this
> duty as a matter of routine.  Are you volunteering for the job?

Would it be any help if anyone* set up a cron job to do this
automatically? That is, run autoconf and check in the results in the dos

* for instance a version of me from a parallell dimension with copious
  spare time.

>> > And I need to worry about Posix platforms when I edit files in those
>> > same directories.  So what?
>> Emacs is part of the GNU project, and the main goal
>> of the GNU project, as I'm sure you know, is to develop
>> a complete Unix-like operating system that is free software.
>> So, it's inherent to Emacs that its code needs to be working
>> on Unix-like platforms.
> Not on Unix-like platforms.  On GNU platforms.  That's not the same.
> I could understand an argument that supporting Unix-like platforms is
> easier.  (And even the "easier" argument is IMO minor, looking at all
> the stuff in lib/ that is needed to support those Unix-like non-GNU
> platforms.)  But the argument about being part of the GNU project is
> bogus, because there's no difference between MS-Windows and Solaris in
> that respect: they are both proprietary platforms.
>> > Maybe you will also claim that bidirectional editing is not needed
>> > by "the rest of us", so my work on that is not important.
>> I would not dream of making such a claim.  But that is a
>> separate issue, and I don't see why it is relevant.
> It is relevant because if I lose the ability to build Emacs with no
> fuss on Windows, I will be unable to continue my work on bidi.

Joakim Verona

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]