[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question.
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question. |
Date: |
Fri, 31 May 2002 21:41:24 +0300 |
> 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.