bug#20113: windows binary contains two identical executables

bug#20113: windows binary contains two identical executables

[Mario Valencia]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 162 bytes --]

http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/
the windows binary emacs-24.4-bin-i686-pc-mingw32.zip
contains two identical executables called emacs.exe and emacs24.4.exe

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 260 bytes --]

bug#20113: windows binary contains two identical executables

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 17:59:46 -0600
> From: Mario Valencia <mariovalspi@gmail.com>
> 
> http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/
> the windows binary emacs-24.4-bin-i686-pc-mingw32.zip
> contains two identical executables called emacs.exe and emacs24.4.exe

Yes.  It's a feature: it allows you to later override emacs.exe with a
newer version, but keep the other one for reference, if you need it.
That's how "make install" installs the binaries.

Ideally, they should be hard links to the same data, but AFAIK zip
files on Windows don't support hard links.

IOW, not a bug; closing.

bug#20113: windows binary contains two identical executables

[Glenn Morris]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> Yes.  It's a feature: it allows you to later override emacs.exe with a
> newer version, but keep the other one for reference, if you need it.

I wonder if this is worth it on MS Windows.
IIUC, install does not install the binaries to a single /usr/local/bin
equivalent, instead each Emacs version lives under an entirely separate
top-level directory? So is anyone really likely to just replace one of
those binaries within that tree?

> Ideally, they should be hard links to the same data, but AFAIK zip
> files on Windows don't support hard links.

What about symbolic?

But really it sounds like it's not worth having two versions on MS
Windows.

bug#20113: windows binary contains two identical executables

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
> Cc: eliz@gnu.org,  mariovalspi@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2015 12:37:11 -0400
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> > Yes.  It's a feature: it allows you to later override emacs.exe with a
> > newer version, but keep the other one for reference, if you need it.
> 
> I wonder if this is worth it on MS Windows.

I think it is, even beyond the usual argument of behaving the same on
all platforms.

> IIUC, install does not install the binaries to a single /usr/local/bin
> equivalent, instead each Emacs version lives under an entirely separate
> top-level directory?

Nope, not anymore.  Not since we switched to Posix-like build
procedures.  See nt/README.

> > Ideally, they should be hard links to the same data, but AFAIK zip
> > files on Windows don't support hard links.
> 
> What about symbolic?

Symbolic links are a PITA on Windows, even on those newer versions
where they are supported.  E.g., their creation requires privileges.