From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Tim Cross Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New build process? Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:48:04 +1000 Message-ID: References: <20110726184220.GA6390@acm.acm> <87bowg6fre.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <4E2F2084.7070001@gmail.com> <87sjpsdtaa.fsf@micropit.couberia.bzh> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1311756495 26937 80.91.229.12 (27 Jul 2011 08:48:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 08:48:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Peter_M=FCnster?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 27 10:48:11 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qlzmk-0002Rd-L4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 10:48:10 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43598 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qlzmj-0005Qf-Ut for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:48:09 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:38397) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qlzmh-0005Qa-Fd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:48:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qlzmg-0000dx-AY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:48:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169]:41161) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qlzmg-0000dt-3J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:48:06 -0400 Original-Received: by iyb14 with SMTP id 14so1935093iyb.0 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 01:48:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EaKOUNNw/aJAUeL7/KQlV05/yza4tZa5fn+CXMp43ds=; b=tPX2VYMtVaoPclk2FWt0ZNWnDY14b5s5OU8KciTsFgGzVXrjW9uTCYHliWPbA3oHhT 74/xuveIuazCWqIl94kMrmr4wWDX/+HZnpk7zDDe4vJsHaQ0brvwKcRXgGYoZQtjkyx3 oI1TRM4GB0bRFG9kx+vGJv164OsJfavsqyiPo= Original-Received: by 10.231.197.16 with SMTP id ei16mr3948946ibb.111.1311756485091; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 01:48:05 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.231.37.76 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 01:48:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87sjpsdtaa.fsf@micropit.couberia.bzh> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.210.169 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:142359 Archived-At: On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Peter M=FCnster wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27 2011, Tim Cross wrote: > >> Still, my main pint is I don't think we should get too carried away >> trying to automate all of this. It is a common requirement and while >> some may have been caught out, it is something you should expect when >> working this close to the development layer. Efforts were made to >> communicate the changes on this list (by you IIRC Eli) and there is >> information in the INSTALL.BZR file. My objection with trying to >> automate or eliminate this simple step is that the solution can often >> be worse than the problem and adds just another point of potential >> failure in a step which is already simple and straight-forward (once >> you know about it!). > > +1 > > >> However, if we can rename the file or make >> another copy of the instructions under a name which the majority feel >> is more likely to be noticed, great - all for that. > > I don't see a big problem with the file name, but eventually you could > merge its content into INSTALL and then remove INSTALL.BZR. > Except i don't believe you need to do this step when installing from a tar ball - the configure script is usually provided. Therefore, putting the instructions in the same file could confuse those building from official non-evelopment releases (I'm assuming thats why they are separated into two files now). As you say, it not a big problem and I think its a communication issue rather than a technical one and requires (possibly) requires a communication fix rather than a technical one. Tim