From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kenichi Handa Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ./make-dist for unicode branch Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:32:37 +0900 Message-ID: References: <87bqyasvv6.fsf@emfox.3322.org> <877j8yse2a.fsf@emfox.3322.org> <873bjmryr5.fsf@emfox.3322.org> <87vewgca2p.fsf@emfox.3322.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138627182 1943 80.91.229.2 (30 Jan 2006 13:19:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:19:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, EmfoxZhou@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 30 14:19:40 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F3YwR-0005Kq-An for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:19:35 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F3Yyl-0005xl-Le for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 08:22:00 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F3YGN-0000y3-D3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:36:07 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F3YGI-0000wa-UZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:36:04 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F3YGF-0000w2-HD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:36:00 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.47.44.130] (helo=tsukuba.m17n.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.52) id 1F3YEQ-0003Bz-QD; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 07:34:07 -0500 Original-Received: from nfs.m17n.org (nfs.m17n.org [192.47.44.7]) by tsukuba.m17n.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id k0UCWdEV012168; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:32:39 +0900 Original-Received: from etlken (etlken.m17n.org [192.47.44.125]) by nfs.m17n.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id k0UCWd5f002319; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:32:39 +0900 Original-Received: from handa by etlken with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1F3YCz-0002jV-00; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:32:37 +0900 Original-To: rms@gnu.org In-reply-to: (rms@gnu.org) User-Agent: SEMI/1.14.3 (Ushinoya) FLIM/1.14.2 (Yagi-Nishiguchi) APEL/10.2 Emacs/22.0.50 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:49751 Archived-At: In article , "Richard M. Stallman" writes: >> I think it is trivial. Just check whether simple.elc exists. > It doesn't assure that the bootstrap was really successful. > Does that really matter here? > The point is to detect the case where no bootstrap was done. > It would be nice to detect the case of a failed bootstrap > also, but that is a different matter. It is ok to detect > just the former. I thought that the point was to prevent making an incomplete tarball. And, for that, it is necessary to detect the case where bootstrap failed. The merit of just checking if bootstrap was done or not regardless of the result is small, isn't it? --- Kenichi Handa handa@m17n.org