From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gregory Heytings Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#48117: 28.0.50; Update of loaddefs.el during normal build is unreliable Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 17:32:13 +0000 Message-ID: References: <8335v8c7o0.fsf@gnu.org> <83lf8zbyr8.fsf@gnu.org> <83a6pfbw3s.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28749"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: 48117@debbugs.gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 30 19:59:24 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lcXQB-0007LX-NN for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 19:59:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41564 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcXQA-0004xS-Pa for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:59:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44010) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcX0g-00053y-0E for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:33:04 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:48202) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcX0f-0005oZ-Nf for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:33:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lcX0f-0003RQ-MR for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:33:01 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Gregory Heytings Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 17:33:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 48117 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs Original-Received: via spool by 48117-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B48117.161980393813175 (code B ref 48117); Fri, 30 Apr 2021 17:33:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 48117) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Apr 2021 17:32:18 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:59748 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lcWzy-0003QP-0I for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:32:18 -0400 Original-Received: from heytings.org ([95.142.160.155]:59826) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lcWzv-0003QG-Su for 48117@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 30 Apr 2021 13:32:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=heytings.org; s=20210101; t=1619803934; bh=1r7HDvybgBK3tKGPot21bNyjAK8T3HDZzblTbrmEeuw=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:References:From; b=dKv2kx87gHyeyFOpmkKYlqqisKKak9HOqnjP8mAbBltnRmCCHgJfnxqu9EMb8pPvF Vt7GZNyN/CqCWPqcvksEhoD48NfujZ9clYdqyCVoMRn3oR8i+NEHCuIJQsoL1+Ozp4 8L3SIYVHok+Lr6YxJ0TuVuTBCzwSpykNGYBPltcyc4qjfppvyGPq2DwjQ8V3rDdYd8 7ZzFXjkF1kUMzfR+XWZvaPt5iQmuU84fAUhv8JvI7WS0qgLYG+qrGtRTkM8g0mFi1t ctww7O0ZcfH30VKMNSm9LeWqu3qw0IDTLPkp2osjT078WpkXA5PqHZRVYnv8FX/Z47 emPY71+3Ojl+Q== In-Reply-To: <83a6pfbw3s.fsf@gnu.org> X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.bugs:205285 Archived-At: >> The generated lisp/loaddefs.el file is AFAICS identical to the >> lisp/ldefs-boot.el (after calling admin/update_autogen -L), which is >> versioned. Why is the lisp/loaddefs.el generated? > > ldefs-boot.el is versioned because it is needed for the initial build of > a fresh clone, and it is not identical to loaddefs.el, especially not > when you are developing. > Can ldefs-boot.el not be used to detect whether loaddefs.el needs to be regenerated? ISTM that if one assumes that ldefs-boot.el is kept up to date, it is necessary to regenerate the loaddefs file only when ldefs-boot.el becomes more recent than the loaddefs file. This would avoid rebuilding the loaddefs file on each make invocation.