From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Two strange messages while building Emacs on MS-Windows Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 23:35:33 +0200 Message-ID: <83mwxpmtp6.fsf@gnu.org> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1354916203 5691 80.91.229.3 (7 Dec 2012 21:36:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 21:36:43 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dani Moncayo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 07 22:36:55 2012 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 1Th5bK-0000CF-Tm for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 22:36:55 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56920 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Th5b8-0005qT-Q0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 16:36:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:37390) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Th5b5-0005pq-PP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 16:36:40 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Th5b4-0001NV-Hs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 16:36:39 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:63631) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Th5b4-0001NN-AI; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 16:36:38 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MEO00E00JLVF000@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 23:35:50 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MEO00E4LJZQ6M80@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 23:35:50 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 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:155351 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 21:17:04 +0100 > From: Dani Moncayo > Cc: Emacs development discussions > > I was following Eli's advice for doing incremental builds > (http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12128#20), since > bootstrapping takes a lot more time. That advice wasn't meant to be used for producing distributions, only for your own use. > But, why the makefiles don't take care all necessary recompilations? Because we don't have a good way of tracking dependencies between Lisp files. > Being forced to do a full bootstrap is too bad. Why is it too bad for a distribution you do once in a while? Let it run in a separate directory, and you can meanwhile do something else. How much time does it take you to bootstrap, btw? And on what machine? > Is not there a better solution for this? No. Which is why admin/make-tarball.txt, the file documenting the procedure to produce a release tarball, says: 2. Bootstrap to make 100% sure all elc files are up-to-date, and to make sure that the later tagged version will bootstrap, should it be necessary to check it out.