From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Juanma Barranquero" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] Changes to emacs/nt/INSTALL,v Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:13:05 +0200 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1207905284 6079 80.91.229.12 (11 Apr 2008 09:14:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:14:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, jasonr@gnu.org To: "Eli Zaretskii" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 11 11:15:16 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JkFLR-0000cg-B9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:14:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JkFKn-0004m5-Es for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:14:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JkFJn-0004Kj-Ef for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:13:11 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JkFJj-0004Hv-2N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:13:08 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JkFJi-0004HW-Op for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:13:06 -0400 Original-Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.236]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JkFJi-0002nv-5J for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:13:06 -0400 Original-Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 57so565682wri.12 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:13:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=Wk3WIc0QDakUtxcN8T6td77GrDbG/kl5yJdtY30h0T4=; b=cgWw5RDIghz4lt9S44QE5tKLgB/n5CqmPIB5qWRInKDsIx9lO94FgBoqwVJ225LjtieKPqwv5GAOW4+bYCo6EkyT0cjJnt6zxgfSBIh32quDtqdyNL1s9A5OAPRFuvHuYkweFgEGXoFSFH3zvDMNaO1wNZlk0amL9XczJxpeVEA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ebDD2O75kT1kliLFD8nrwSesFjS3oL7Hvl3PvKNanFBsEl8/NMDtmND/9M4qSCkKe3L3Z2WrGI95BUOXnWR4yy7d/iFrw/ecMqxnLtqQvYL78bH8I7J+UBnmfYcWd4VaY+2OO6Gpogxo3AKvs5cvPCBC0Xi5khCdtNLXBL+QuFA= Original-Received: by 10.114.120.1 with SMTP id s1mr3139732wac.137.1207905185133; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.115.72.13 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:13:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) 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:94954 Archived-At: On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > No, it isn't. If you want to be correct, use "make bootstrap". I do, daily :) But still I use cvs-update quite often. > cvs-update was introduced as a very useful shortcut, which takes half > a minute, if only a few Lisp files were modified Hm. I would've said that the whole point of cvs-update is to be more correct than recompile; else, why not simply use recompile, which is faster? > rather than one and > a half hour taken by bootstrapping. Just out of curiosity: in what kind of hardware? On a 3GHz Pentium 4, it takes less than half an hour for me, from `make maintainer-clean' to installation (though I cut some time by always doing an in-place installation). That with MinGW's gcc; when I used Visual C it was even faster. > One (minor) problem is that it regenerates subdirs.el unconditionally, > so whatever targets that depend on it will be remade as well. Aha. > But these are all minor considerations, admittedly. Yes. I'm more interested in the question of whether nt makefile's recompile should call lisp makefile's cvs-update, or perhaps recompile + updates. Juanma