Re: Files from gnulib

[Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>]

`On 01/27/2011 03:08 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> I do run doschk from time to time, and it seemed to be frequently
> enough.  The issue is only important when a release is close.

If file renaming code needs to be checked only when a release is
close, that's fine.  We can run the checks then.

> In any case, the problem is not with having a Make target (the command
> is trivial), but to arrange for someone or something to run it and
> report the results.

This can be done when a release is close.  It's better if it's
automated.

>> Having MS-DOS builders type two commands to extract, rather than one,
>> is not complicated.
> 
> I'm not talking about the number of commands, I'm talking about the
> complexity of the first one and the potential to make mistakes in it.

Cutting and pasting two lines is pretty reliable.  Anyone who wants to
build Emacs for MS-DOS already should be referring to the
instructions, to learn other things.  For example, they need to know
that they should use djtar and not some other extractor.  These
instructions, which are needed anyway, can tell them to cut and paste
two lines.  There is no fundamental problem with this approach.

> The argument could include slashes if the tarball is in a different
> directory.

If people cute and paste two lines, as suggested, this won't be a
problem, because the two lines won't include slashes in the wrong
spot.

> So now I'm supposed to lobby Emacs maintainers to have MS-DOS build
> instructions on the Web site?

That's easy.  All we have to do is to put the two lines into the Emacs
manual (enough to extract the files), and then point people at the
extracted readme file.  That will not be a problem.

> You don't realize how little time I have to work on Emacs in general
> and on the MS-DOS port in particular.

Everybody who contributes to Emacs has limited time.  We are trying to
lessen the total amount of developer time being consumed by this problem.
It's possible that this may require spending a bit more of your time,
so that we collectively save time.  Even so, this can be a tradeoff
that is well worth making.

> If the issue of file-name clashes becomes so unbearable for the
> Emacs developers that they will request that all limitations on file
> names are unconditionally lifted, it will be easier for me to
> declare that the MS-DOS port is dead, as soon as the conflicts hit
> the point where it cannot be handled by simple tricks.

If that is the best alternative available, then we should do that.
However, it doesn't sound that hard to do something that is similar to
what GDB does, but is considerably more reliable because it is checked
systematically.

> Look, it's pointless to try to push further the possibility that Emacs
> will adopt the same way of unpacking as GDB.

I am not suggesting that.  I'm suggesting something better.