[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?
From: |
Ken Raeburn |
Subject: |
Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree? |
Date: |
Thu, 20 May 2010 21:39:53 -0400 |
On May 20, 2010, at 14:01, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Ken Raeburn <address@hidden>
>> Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 13:12:29 -0400
>> Cc: address@hidden
>>
>> If you need to pick one place, then I think for now emacs.c is the right
>> place.
>
> Until someone moves it again, that is...
Well, yeah.
> Why was it moved, anyway? I don't remember any discussions of that,
> apologies if I missed something. The string was in version.el since
> forever. The move subtly broke the MS-DOS port, btw, which I could
> have prevented if I just knew about it coming, which I didn't until
> now.
"emacs --version" would print out the version if it was set, otherwise ignore
the option; it does this early in main(), before Lisp code is loaded. The
"make install" rule always runs "emacs --version" to figure out the DOC file
name. If you build with CANNOT_DUMP, the emacs binary that gets run hasn't had
the basic Lisp code pre-loaded into it. So "emacs --version" pops up a window.
Making the C code aware of the version number seemed like the easiest way to
deal with it. I'm sorry about the problem with the MS-DOS build; I took this
approach because I thought that it (unlike trying to generate all
version-string appearances from one canonical source) would be a simple,
relatively minor change with little impact on the DOS/Windows builds. (Using
PACKAGE_VERSION presumes you're using the autoconf-based configure script.
Extracting it from anywhere to make something visible to C requires running
some external program like grep or sed.) Apparently I underestimated the
impact anyways. I did discuss it a bit with Chong Yidong because he had made
some comments a while back in response to my talking about the "--version"
problem, but I didn't bring up my planned change on the list.
It seems like half the seemingly-minor tweaks I do relating to the build system
wind up stomping on the DOS/Windows builds in some subtle way I didn't expect.
*sigh* Next time I'll try to make sure you're in the loop.... I don't have
any more such changes planned right now though.
Ken
- Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?, Jeff Kowalczyk, 2010/05/20
- Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?, Ken Raeburn, 2010/05/20
- Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/05/20
- Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?,
Ken Raeburn <=
- Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/05/21
- Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?, Stefan Monnier, 2010/05/21
- Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/05/21
- Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?, Stefan Monnier, 2010/05/21
- Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?, Ken Raeburn, 2010/05/21
- Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?, Stefan Monnier, 2010/05/22
- Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/05/22
- Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?, Richard Stallman, 2010/05/22
- Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?, Stefan Monnier, 2010/05/23
- Re: Canonical location for emacs-version string in source tree?, Lennart Borgman, 2010/05/23