[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [O] Makefile restructuring

From: Mike McLean
Subject: Re: [O] Makefile restructuring
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:46:59 -0400

On Apr 22, 2012, at 11:34 AM, Achim Gratz wrote:

> suvayu ali writes:
>> The above recipe works. But just "make", leaves the working tree without
>> lisp/org-install.el. From the log I see it explicitly deletes it, but
>> doesn't generate it again. A subsequent "make autoloads" is required to
>> get a working org setup. Is this expected behaviour?
> This is intentional.  The autoloads are generated just before
> installing, since that's where they are needed.  I really don't want to
> encourage further use of the git worktree as the "org installation",
> although it sort of works if you do a "make auto loads".

This makes sense, and I’ve asked the question on how best to handle for el-get 
on Gihub. Meanwhile my original pull request has been merged, so for the moment 
at least el-get uses the ("compile" "autoloads" "info") workflow. You are 
correct that adding a make autoloads does work, I've used (and updated) 
compiled org-mode straight from the work tree for a few days now. If there is a 
better or more canonical way to do this, I'd be happy to change and work the 
changes back into el-get where I can.

> You can now easily keep multiple installations within the org directory
> if so desired (I do this myself for testing).  Using the worktree
> instead can lead to very hard to track bugs when the autoload files get
> out of sync with the sources.  This is the reason I always remove them
> before compilation and I should probably remove them just after
> installation as well.

What do you do to make that work? It sounds like an intriguing possibility.

reply via email to

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