From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: tomas@tuxteam.de Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Suppressing native compilation (short and long term) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2022 18:27:05 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87bkqxf1ij.fsf@tethera.net> <8335c9dkyf.fsf@gnu.org> <83edvqafr7.fsf@gnu.org> <83h70m19yv.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ky7TC4djyW00Q1Fj" Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="12468"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 02 18:28:14 2022 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1of1p7-00033N-Vj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 18:28:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33968 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1of1p7-0003mx-1Q for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 12:28:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35256) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1of1o7-0002va-7d for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 12:27:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mail.tuxteam.de ([5.199.139.25]:33698) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1of1o5-0005cb-CN; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 12:27:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tuxteam.de; s=mail; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject :Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=3aWvIRawPUVD0m/5k8v6EnZQiHA44akaVhpM/SXtgv8=; b=VrFYwriPWhhl27nt9gU9NttnIQ 9FLW1/qqwn3ofkUzWZtBo2dtaxV9KmTvSQVlAZ5sCSxzePrEJVC2RgUUlxNGshPHXbB+W46UuStvT 8adwBdXU2ZA/tMeSiRV20c5U1LnM+k6UsSfWBCQoBHS/szPeBqlePSdXlAvc5DZaXnCwvmtiP2Poz 7STLXdDexHJfB1OT6MF0myc7ctark1plc/Wp8GtBP/msouWFvTisDbWnPA+SxP9RzPKWwDZ5pbY+a aR6nkvfDkzSDG7zI3AteQgyEPmwa97ap1Spd2coqyhz+irmyqS0sKH66/xgydgLb53U44ZLU4LWHN RSwy9Kig==; Original-Received: from tomas by mail.tuxteam.de with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1of1o1-00037G-CR; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 18:27:05 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83h70m19yv.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.199.139.25; envelope-from=tomas@tuxteam.de; helo=mail.tuxteam.de X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:296638 Archived-At: --ky7TC4djyW00Q1Fj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 02, 2022 at 07:11:52PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2022 17:53:46 +0200 > > From: tomas@tuxteam.de > > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org [two views: JIT cache vs. pre-compiled .eln] > Let me be blunt: this is currently _the_only_ view of the Emacs > project. After a lot of deliberations, we didn't find any reasons for > alternative views. My suggestion is to try our view before concluding > that it doesn't fit some situations. Thanks for being blunt :-) My whole intention was to make this difference clear, because I had the impression that there were unspoken assumptions making the discussion unnecessarily difficult. > > > Exactly. So what is the problem with directories writable by all > > > users? > >=20 > > User separation goes out of the window, and this is one important > > service the OS provides. To illustrate, one user could put malicious > > .eln files all other users would execute. >=20 > This is about installation writing files into a shared space on disk, > right? No. I was picking up on your "directories writable by all users". Perhaps I misunderstood and you didn't mean common directories: if so, please ignore. > If so, this is something for the Debian packagers to figure > out, because doing that is their request. And anyway, I don't > understand how do *.eln files are different from *.elc files, which > are already written to shared disk space upon installation. What am I > missing? Perhaps nothing. With the native-comp-eln-load-path, there seems to be a way for Debian to "do it its way"; you don't recommend it (I still don't quite understand), and there are very strong reasons to take your recommendations seriously. > > > > That's all fine, but then users wouldn't profit from the pre-compil= ed > > > > .eln. > > >=20 > > > There's no profit, IME. There are only disadvantages: you are in > > > effect fighting against the Emacs defaults, for reasons that are > > > purely theoretical. > >=20 > > I have the impression that some of that reasons are quite practical > > for Debian packagers. >=20 > I submit that those reasons were most probably derived from a broken > analogy with the *.elc files and with byte-compilation in general. > Not from actual usage experience. Native compilation looks > deceptively similar to byte compilation, but it isn't. So if > producing the *.eln files seems to contradict some Debian rules and > procedures, my suggestion is to talk to the upstream project, before > inventing solutions, because of 2 considerations: I understand that there is a difference between .elc and .eln (the set of dependencies is significantly bigger in the second case, for one). >=20 > . the problems may not be real ones, only perceived ones > . the upstream codebase might already provide solutions I can understand Debian's position here (yours too). > > > > In a Debian-distributed Emacs [...] > > > > there are .elc in /usr/share for all to use; due to the search path, [...] > > > > Can you do the same for .elc? > > >=20 > > > I guess you meant "with .eln files"? Uh -- yes, sorry. Well spotted. > > > Yes, see native-comp-eln-load-path, which was already mentioned > > > here several times. > >=20 > > So that might be one part of the way out. >=20 > If one needs it. I don't think they do, and I don't recommend going > there. Hm. I don't want to steal your time more, but... if you could illustrate why, I'd eager to learn. Cheers --=20 tom=C3=A1s --ky7TC4djyW00Q1Fj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iF0EABECAB0WIQRp53liolZD6iXhAoIFyCz1etHaRgUCYzm70AAKCRAFyCz1etHa RnboAJ92Hb3sTh8nw+xzlaIH2uJ8d9v0zQCcDHcsq6BSZayc6TN1V2ueZHg4rDk= =/m0g -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ky7TC4djyW00Q1Fj--