Re: windows installer

["Jostein Kjønigsen" <jostein@secure.kjonigsen.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1750 bytes --]

On Sat, Nov 11, 2017, at 08:33 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
>> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:46:09 -0500
>> 
>> For lack of familiarity with the Windows world, I don't know if
>> typical>> Windows users will want to add it to PATH (as a GNU/Linux user, of
>> course I'd do that), but I think the "frequently" above is incorrect.> Maybe I'm missing something.  29 packages (out of 166) in ELPA have a> Makefile.  Taking just one random Makefile, company/Makefile, I see
> this:
> 
>   EMACS=emacs
>   [...]
> 
>   compile:
>   ${EMACS} -Q --batch -L . -f batch-byte-compile company.el company-
>   *.el> 
> If this Makefile is invoked with "make compile", it clearly expects
> Emacs to be found along PATH.  And even if Make is invoked from Emacs,> the directory where the Emacs binary was found is not added to PATH.
> So how can this work without Emacs's binary being on PATH?  And what
> am I missing here?
> 

Not meaning to come off as any final authority here, but speaking as
someone deeply familiar with the Windows-platform (decades user-
experience, 10+ MS developer certifications, lalala)... With the clause
that I'm not som much a C/C++ kind of guy...
The most obvious problem these packages will encounter is that make (GNU
make, or any other variant) is typically not installed on regular end-
user Windows machines. It's not part of the regular Windows developer
toolchain, which typically relies on MSBuild instead.
Expecting "make" to be available is something I would consider a portability-
problem *with the package*, and I honestly don't think this is the Emacs-
installer's job to put in place.
--
Regards
Jostein Kjønigsen
jostein@kjonigsen.net


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2504 bytes --]