[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: New build process?

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: New build process?
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 22:24:29 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

David Reitter <address@hidden> writes:

> On Jul 26, 2011, at 2:47 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> I don't seem to be able to find instructions about this, and I haven't
>>> found anything relevant and recent in the emacs-devel archive.  Help,
>>> please!
> Suggest changing the name of this file.  Not everybody gets the source
> code via Bazaar.  When these inconvenient changes happened, I got
> caught out like Alan Mackenzie, since I wouldn't think of reading this
> file.
> Better yet, include a configure script that calls autogen.sh and then
> runs itself.  If people consider this an inconvenience w.r.t. the
> version control tool, then perhaps autogen.sh could generate
> configure.local instead.
> As others have said here, people expect to be able to do ./configure;
> make install.

"people" get a tarball, and then this works perfectly fine and is
usually described in INSTALL.  When working from a version control
system, it is the rule rather than the exception that generated files
_including_ ./configure are _not_ checked into the version control
system, and that there is a separate INSTALL.CVS file or similar.  The
"usual way" for installing from a tarball is "./configure && make
install", and the "usual way" for installing from a version control
system checkout is "./autogen.sh && ./configure && make install".

It is an unreasonable expectation that ./configure is checked into the
version control system if it is a generated file and not source code.
It has been this way for a long time in the Emacs source tree, and has
been a source for trouble for a long time.  And obviously it has lead to
bad expectations as well.

David Kastrup

reply via email to

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