Re: bug#13026: Assume POSIX 1003.1-1988 or later for signal.h.

Re: bug#13026: Assume POSIX 1003.1-1988 or later for signal.h.

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 18:40:57 -0800
> From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
> 
> As an aside, it'd be nicer if lib/Makefile were computed more
> automatically from lib/gnulib.mk on Microsoft platforms, so
> that this sort of thing wouldn't require manual editing.

That requires Windows to use the Posix configure script.  Doing that
is a large job that is already under way, albeit slowly.  It is a
large job because:

  . neither configure.ac nor the various Makefile.in files, in
    particular src/Makefile.in, currently support the MS-Windows
    build, which needs some special options be used and some special
    commands to be run, as seen in the makefile.w32-in files;

  . the nt/ subdirectory and the parts of the build there are not
    covered at all by configure.ac and Makefile.in files;

  . quite a few of the tests done by configure need to be overridden,
    because the necessary features are implemented only in Emacs's own
    source, not in system headers and libraries; and

  . configure.ac is set up to produce executables statically linked
    against available optional libraries, whereas the Windows build
    loads those libraries dynamically at run time (this is a minor
    annoyance easily fixed in configure.ac, but there are a lot of
    such annoyances, and more are added as we go).

Volunteers to help in this job are welcome.

Re: bug#13026: Assume POSIX 1003.1-1988 or later for signal.h.

[Paul Eggert]

On 12/08/2012 02:13 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 18:40:57 -0800
>> > From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
>> > 
>> > As an aside, it'd be nicer if lib/Makefile were computed more
>> > automatically from lib/gnulib.mk on Microsoft platforms, so
>> > that this sort of thing wouldn't require manual editing.

> That requires Windows to use the Posix configure script.

I was thinking of something more modest, namely to change
nt/configure.bat to copy the needed rules from
lib/gnulib.mk to lib/Makefile.  This step wouldn't
all need to be done in configure.bat; it could be
precomputed on a POSIXish platform, if the Windows tools
aren't up to doing what 'sed' can do.  Ideally lib/makefile.w32-in
could just say "include gnulib.mk" but it might need
to include a modified version of gnulib.mk instead.

But if the plan is to port 'configure' to Windows perhaps
this idea would be a distraction.

Re: Gnulib automation on Windows (was: bug#13026: Assume POSIX 1003.1-1988 or later for signal.h.)

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 09:34:05 -0800
> From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
> CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> On 12/08/2012 02:13 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 18:40:57 -0800
> >> > From: Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
> >> > 
> >> > As an aside, it'd be nicer if lib/Makefile were computed more
> >> > automatically from lib/gnulib.mk on Microsoft platforms, so
> >> > that this sort of thing wouldn't require manual editing.
> 
> > That requires Windows to use the Posix configure script.
> 
> I was thinking of something more modest, namely to change
> nt/configure.bat to copy the needed rules from
> lib/gnulib.mk to lib/Makefile.

I don't see how this could work: gnulib.mk uses Unixy shell features,
so running "make" will need such a shell.

> This step wouldn't all need to be done in configure.bat; it could be
> precomputed on a POSIXish platform, if the Windows tools aren't up
> to doing what 'sed' can do.  Ideally lib/makefile.w32-in could just
> say "include gnulib.mk" but it might need to include a modified
> version of gnulib.mk instead.

Sed is not the main problem here.  Shell commands are.  I don't know
how to automatically convert Bourne shell commands to commands cmd.exe
can grok.  It might be possible using something like msdos/sed*.inp,
but those Sed scripts would then need the kind of maintenance effort
we are trying to avoid here.

> But if the plan is to port 'configure' to Windows perhaps
> this idea would be a distraction.

That's what I think should be done, if we want the maintenance burden
for the Windows configury to become significantly lower.