From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ./make-dist for unicode branch Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:23:53 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87bqyasvv6.fsf@emfox.3322.org> <877j8yse2a.fsf@emfox.3322.org> <873bjmryr5.fsf@emfox.3322.org> <87vewgca2p.fsf@emfox.3322.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1138649124 32746 80.91.229.2 (30 Jan 2006 19:25:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:25:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, rms@gnu.org, EmfoxZhou@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jan 30 20:25:22 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 1F3edk-00084e-PN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:24:41 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F3egj-00085n-0B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:27:45 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F3egM-0007yf-10 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:27:22 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1F3egK-0007vF-T0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:27:21 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F3egK-0007ug-M1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:27:20 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.17] (helo=gandalf.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1F3eeR-0006KB-Vw; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:25:24 -0500 Original-Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by gandalf.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.1-GA) with ESMTP id HSP02734; Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:23:54 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-244-143.inter.net.il [84.228.244.143]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CPG05751 (AUTH halo1); Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:23:52 +0200 (IST) Original-To: Kenichi Handa In-reply-to: (message from Kenichi Handa on Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:32:37 +0900) 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:49786 Archived-At: > From: Kenichi Handa > CC: eliz@gnu.org, EmfoxZhou@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:32:37 +0900 > > 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? How about if we check that all the generated source files that are not in the repository were regenerated? (Excluding the *.elc, *.o, and other compiled files, of course.) There shouldn't be too many, I think.