From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dani Moncayo Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Two strange messages while building Emacs on MS-Windows Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 23:11:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: <83mwxpmtp6.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1354918270 23220 80.91.229.3 (7 Dec 2012 22:11:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 22:11:10 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 07 23:11:23 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 1Th68g-0004yh-3v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 23:11:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41646 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Th68T-0008WR-R7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 17:11:09 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44770) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Th68Q-0008W6-QD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 17:11:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Th68P-0002Fy-QY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 17:11:06 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]:50703) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Th68M-0002FB-6U; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 17:11:02 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id v19so591463obq.0 for ; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:11:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=uAtHPzgnqLU/u3mkNYTdw2+Z6ZVVrxxyV6Fs9Jj8+JE=; b=sni1EVxKEENK9kKiy+/5YqG4G4TZs0mytZOlC+1XIOb9W1zT7GGnz481PAgbucKzTC mKlMYpJ93hAAlrnTJw7aU/Q3KvIszDHRHLy5N3e1B+qBwpWRBXFMPzKKuIutGZjPT0AF sBoMU3h5GW736tWaDT5qpJjQeb8hVM3AxelRiByKKxTWSCN10rULK/9ObSaV3ZexP+KR Kw72JgYF6ra4WMp6e07MuafNMWWuX9bz6ehlJM4seSX1uKDO8igSwSfsT73GYHsKGx0z uxKwr9RcOLoP+wTDagY5EupbfskXcFYnsR0uG8BGTi4wWJjJuudY1ViBCEpITkTD083Z DNzg== Original-Received: by 10.60.2.164 with SMTP id 4mr3924832oev.31.1354918261327; Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:11:01 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.60.11.39 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:11:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <83mwxpmtp6.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.214.169 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:155352 Archived-At: >> 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. Ok, I didn't know it. >> 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? I'm not sure. About 30 min, I think. I'll time it next time. I said it's "too bad" because I'm used to incremental compilations, which take much less time. But if there's no better alternative, I'll have to do it. >> 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. Ok, thanks for the info. -- Dani Moncayo