[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: ELPA -- making individual packages

From: Eric Abrahamsen
Subject: Re: ELPA -- making individual packages
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2020 09:19:31 -0700
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>>> I just realized to my horror that my Gnorb package in ELPA barfs up
>>>> several screenfuls of warnings when it compiles. I'd like to fix those
>>>> warnings by compiling it with a clean batch Emacs, using the GNUmakefile
>>>> in the git repo, but my only option is to make *all* the packages at
>>>> once, and that fails almost immediately on cpio-mode.
>>> [ Hmm... cpio-mode seems to build fine for me (with a crapload of
>>>   warnings, tho).  Can you send me the error log so I can try and
>>>   fix it?  ]
>> Dunno what's going on here, I tried once (first make externals, then
>> make) and it gave me:
>>   INFO     Scraping files for counsel-autoloads.el...done
>>   INFO     Scraping files for cpio-mode-autoloads.el...
>> cpio-newc-test.el:0:0: error: scan-error: (Unbalanced parentheses 2556 2702)
>> make: *** [GNUmakefile:141: packages/cpio-mode/cpio-mode-autoloads.el] Error 
>> 255
> Hmm... I don't see any `cpio-newc-test.el` here.  Any chance this got
> fixed by pulling again?

Yes it did -- I think I *thought* I had pulled before I made the first
time, but hadn't, so I was building something very stale. This and the
sql-beeline error are gone now. Building gives a lot of warnings
(expected, I guess), and weird lines like:

Byte compiling packages/chess/chess-eco.el
Unable to activate package ‘ebdb-i18n-chn’.
Required package ‘pyim-1.6.0’ is unavailable

For each file compiled. Those warnings look suspiciously relevant to me,
and I tried sticking a "-Q" in the EMACS command at the top of
GNUmakefile, but still got them.

What do you think about the per-package compile command? I feel like
that last rule definition got pretty close -- in fact, the warnings I
was getting from it look just like the warnings above, so maybe the rule
itself is fine...


reply via email to

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