From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Eli Zaretskii" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question. Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:41:24 +0300 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <8962-Fri31May2002214124+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> References: <87u1oo6xhm.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1022871084 2499 127.0.0.1 (31 May 2002 18:51:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 18:51:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 17DrUi-0000eB-00 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 20:51:24 +0200 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17Dro6-0001cK-00 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 21:11:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17DrVD-0005gK-00; Fri, 31 May 2002 14:51:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mirapoint.inter.net.il ([192.114.186.20]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 17DrSP-0005XC-00 for ; Fri, 31 May 2002 14:49:01 -0400 Original-Received: from Zaretsky ([80.230.2.40]) by mirapoint.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.1.0.58-GA) with ESMTP id AFC60048; Fri, 31 May 2002 21:48:49 +0300 (IDT) Original-To: rlb@defaultvalue.org X-Mailer: emacs 21.3.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9 In-Reply-To: <87u1oo6xhm.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob Browning on Fri, 31 May 2002 12:25:09 -0500) Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.9 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:4531 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:4531 > From: Rob Browning > Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:25:09 -0500 > > An alternate approach would be to still build Emacs twice, but put all > the bits that the two trees have in common into an emacs21-common > package. Then the emacs21 and emacs21-nox packages might not need to > be much more than the actual application binary. However this > wouldn't be safe if the files in the with and without-x install trees > are likely to be different in important ways (i.e. different sets of > files, binary incompatibilities in .elc files, etc.). There should not be any such incompatibilities. The .elc files could be slightly different, but they should work at run time anyway. > Another way it might not be safe is if add-on emacs packages, like > calc, psgml, etc. could detect whether they were being compiled by an > X or non-X Emacs and generate differing .elc files as a result. I think this issue doesn't exist. > Accordingly I wanted to check with you upstream and see if you > considered this a viable approach FWIW, I think you should indeed put all the *.el and *.elc files into a common package. If disk storage is a problem, you could have all the X-specific *.el/*.elc files in a separate package, but I'd rather think the savings will be minimal, since most Lisp files are not specific to any display type.