From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vincent_Bela=EFche?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Can't build latest emacs on MSW + CRLF display issue Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 04:44:31 +0200 Message-ID: <80haebdf8w.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1377571514 17354 80.91.229.3 (27 Aug 2013 02:45:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 02:45:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Karl Berry , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii , Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Aug 27 04:45:16 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VE9HP-0002Wo-1b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 04:45:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53766 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VE9HO-0006RN-Fz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 22:45:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44802) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VE9HG-0006OB-8W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 22:45:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VE9HA-0004BH-E7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 22:45:06 -0400 Original-Received: from smtp05.smtpout.orange.fr ([80.12.242.127]:39374 helo=smtp.smtpout.orange.fr) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VE9HA-0004Ay-75 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 26 Aug 2013 22:45:00 -0400 Original-Received: from CHOUNEK ([92.135.106.1]) by mwinf5d09 with ME id Heky1m00A01pze403ekzHS; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 04:44:59 +0200 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.12.242.127 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:163047 Archived-At: Hello Glenn, > From: rgm@gnu.org > To: eliz@gnu.org > Subject: Re: Can't build latest emacs on MSW + CRLF display issue > Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 21:46:03 -0400 > CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > I'm not trying to be difficult here, I really just don't understand > your logic. > > Reasons to remove the old method: > 1) It's unsupported and out-of-date (eg I know it doesn't build all the > manuals. Minor but still a bug.). > > 2) There's no need to have two separate methods to build Emacs on > MS Windows. > > 3) The new method is obviously preferable since it is the same method > used on all other platforms (except MS DOS). > > Even if 1) changes (and it shows no sign of doing so), 2) and 3) never will. > > > On the other hand, I can't think of a single reason to _not_ remove it. > > If someone turns up and wants to do 1), it will be the least of their > problems to first revert the commit that removed the old method. (But > we should not let them anyway, because of 2 and 3.) > > > (BTW, I suggest at least renaming nt/INSTALL to nt/INSTALL.OLD, and > INSTALL.MSYS to INSTALL.) > Not sure whether this email above was addressed to me or to Eli. Sorry if I did something wrong with adding the user's confirmation in the configure.bat. Is that your concern ? I was just trying to stick better to your original proposal (big fat warning + user's confirmation to go on at his/her own risks). Maybe I misinterpreted what you suggested, as I had not followed the full discussion on building for MSW. Vincent. PS-1: Personnally I don't mind if the .bat file is removed. But at least keeing it has the advantage that if a user --- like me --- used his/her legacy own MSDOS script to do all the job of - update the source - configure PATH for the build to work properly - launch configure.bat with all the wanted options and then make then this user will receive a clear warning why this old automated way won't work, so he/she can easily update his script (or rather rewrite it fully as a BASH script) to use the new build method. And therefore this user will be less likely to come to this forum like I did and bother everyone with questions. PS-2: Your suggestion to rename the INSTALL files is excellent.