configure-more.zip

configure-more.zip

[Lennart Borgman]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 356 bytes --]

Since I once again missed that 'cvs update -kb' I decided to do 
something about it. I have attached a bat-file that checks for this and 
also for the existence of 'find' and 'xargs' which I believe also are 
needed to build Emacs.

This runs under cmd.exe and it also seems to work under command.com.

Could we please augment configure.bat with this? ;-)

[-- Attachment #2: configure-more.zip --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 568 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 142 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel

Re: configure-more.zip

[Jason Rumney]

Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> writes:

> Since I once again missed that 'cvs update -kb' I decided to do
> something about it. I have attached a bat-file that checks for this
> and also for the existence of 'find' and 'xargs' which I believe also
> are needed to build Emacs.

Where are find and xargs used? I can't find any reference in the
makefiles. 

Re: configure-more.zip

[Lennart Borgman]

Jason Rumney wrote:

>Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> writes:
>
>  
>
>>Since I once again missed that 'cvs update -kb' I decided to do
>>something about it. I have attached a bat-file that checks for this
>>and also for the existence of 'find' and 'xargs' which I believe also
>>are needed to build Emacs.
>>    
>>
>
>Where are find and xargs used? I can't find any reference in the
>makefiles. 
>  
>
I can not find the places any more!? I believe they were used for 
building the info files, but I am not sure now.

Anyway that part does not seem to be needed anymore.

Re: configure-more.zip

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:27:05 +0200
> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
> 
> Since I once again missed that 'cvs update -kb' I decided to do 
> something about it. I have attached a bat-file that checks for this and 
> also for the existence of 'find' and 'xargs' which I believe also are 
> needed to build Emacs.

<rant>
Why send it as a .zip file in a binary attachment, when all you want
to send is plain text for inclusion in configure.bat?
</rant>

> This runs under cmd.exe and it also seems to work under command.com.
> 
> Could we please augment configure.bat with this? ;-)

Thanks.

I must say that I don't like this solution too much.  First, the
problems you are trying to solve are only relevant for people who
build CVS Emacs.  It is IMHO a bad idea to frighten users who are
building from a released tarball by warning them against non-existent
problems or asking them to install unneeded utilities.

Checking the line endings with "grep -P" is also less than ideal: some
users might have a Grep that is not recent enough to support -P, or
even a Grep that is not a GNU Grep.  AFAICS, we didn't even require to
have Grep installed until now.

Finally, I think the Windows build needs neither `find' nor `xargs'.
Can you tell where you saw them used?

Therefore, I suggest the following strategy for solving the -kb issue:
put a small C program into the nt subdirectory which would read
nt/configure.bat, nt/nmake.defs, and nt/makefile.w32-in in binary mode
and make sure they have the right line endings; if they don't, this
program would fail.  Then have this program invoked by "make bootstrap"
in the nt directory.

Would you like to implement this solution?

Re: configure-more.zip

[Lennart Borgman]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

><rant>
>Why send it as a .zip file in a binary attachment, when all you want
>to send is plain text for inclusion in configure.bat?
></rant>
>  
>
Because sending a bat-file was not allowed.

>Finally, I think the Windows build needs neither `find' nor `xargs'.
>Can you tell where you saw them used?
>  
>
When building info files I believed, but that may be wrong. I might also 
have been when I was trying to make things working using MSYS I saw that 
and draw a bad conclusion. But all this was quite a while ago.

>Therefore, I suggest the following strategy for solving the -kb issue:
>put a small C program into the nt subdirectory which would read
>nt/configure.bat, nt/nmake.defs, and nt/makefile.w32-in in binary mode
>and make sure they have the right line endings; if they don't, this
>program would fail.  Then have this program invoked by "make bootstrap"
>in the nt directory.
>
>Would you like to implement this solution?
>  
>
You mean build and run this program at the end of configure.bat? Would 
not "make bootstrap" be too late? Yes, it seems like a better solution. 
I will try.

Re: configure-more.zip

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 13:12:44 +0200
> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
> CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> ><rant>
> >Why send it as a .zip file in a binary attachment, when all you want
> >to send is plain text for inclusion in configure.bat?
> ></rant>
> >  
> >
> Because sending a bat-file was not allowed.

??? By whom?

> >Therefore, I suggest the following strategy for solving the -kb issue:
> >put a small C program into the nt subdirectory which would read
> >nt/configure.bat, nt/nmake.defs, and nt/makefile.w32-in in binary mode
> >and make sure they have the right line endings; if they don't, this
> >program would fail.  Then have this program invoked by "make bootstrap"
> >in the nt directory.
> >
> >Would you like to implement this solution?
> >  
> >
> You mean build and run this program at the end of configure.bat?

Not at the end of configure.bat, but rather at the beginning of 
"make bootstrap".  The point here is that running configure.bat does
not necessarily mean the user will be bootstrapping.  If she doesn't
bootstrap, there's no reason to bother her about issues that are only
relevant to bootstrapping.

> Would not "make bootstrap" be too late?

No, I don't think it is.  If the effect is that "make bootstrap"
refuses to continue if line endings are not right, we've reached our
goal, right?  This is similar to what lib-src/test-distrib.c does (for
every build, not just for bootstrap).

> Yes, it seems like a better solution.  I will try.

Thanks.

Re: configure-more.zip

[Lennart Borgman]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>>><rant>
>>>Why send it as a .zip file in a binary attachment, when all you want
>>>to send is plain text for inclusion in configure.bat?
>>></rant>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Because sending a bat-file was not allowed.
>>    
>>
>
>??? By whom?
>
This is what I got back, it looks like mx10.gnu.org does not like bat files:

 - These recipients of your message have been processed by the mail server:
emacs-devel@gnu.org; Failed; 5.3.0 (other or undefined mail system status)

    Remote MTA mx10.gnu.org: network error


 - SMTP protocol diagnostic: 550 Found Level 1/Unsafe Windows attachment: bat. Resend as TAR or ZIP.

Re: configure-more.zip

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 15:32:13 +0200
> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
> CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> This is what I got back, it looks like mx10.gnu.org does not like bat files:
> 
>  - These recipients of your message have been processed by the mail server:
> emacs-devel@gnu.org; Failed; 5.3.0 (other or undefined mail system status)
> 
>     Remote MTA mx10.gnu.org: network error
> 
> 
>  - SMTP protocol diagnostic: 550 Found Level 1/Unsafe Windows attachment: bat. Resend as TAR or ZIP.

It doesn't like *.bat files sent _as_a_binary_attachment_.  Text files
can be sent inline, as part of the message body, especially since
yours wasn't even a complete batch file, just an addition to it.

(Btw, I'm amazed to see that you use something other than Emacs for
sending mail.)

Re: configure-more.zip

[Kevin Gallagher]

From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
> (Btw, I'm amazed to see that you use something other than Emacs for
> sending mail.)

Ah, I'm not!  It has become a common problem.  Many corporations and 
universities, today, only support email on MS Windows networked boxes, to 
which all employees/students have access.  Unix/GNU Linux networks, on the 
other hand, are typically used only for product development by those 
engineers doing the actual work.  Not infrequently, these are isolated 
networks with no Internet access.

Re: configure-more.zip

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:22:51 -0500
> From: "Kevin Gallagher" <kevin.gal@verizon.net>
> Cc: <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> 
> From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
> > (Btw, I'm amazed to see that you use something other than Emacs for
> > sending mail.)
> 
> Ah, I'm not!  It has become a common problem.  Many corporations and 
> universities, today, only support email on MS Windows networked boxes, to 
> which all employees/students have access.  Unix/GNU Linux networks, on the 
> other hand, are typically used only for product development by those 
> engineers doing the actual work.  Not infrequently, these are isolated 
> networks with no Internet access.

Emacs can be set up for email on a Windows box as well: we have
smtpmail.el for that.  In fact, I'm using smtpmail like that for quite
some time with no problems.

So I don't see why would this be ``a common problem''.

Re: configure-more.zip

[Kevin Gallagher]

A very large number of companies, today, have tied themselves into using 
Microsoft Outlook coupled with a Microsoft Exchange Server.  Outlook has 
many integrated features, including personal calendars, group calendars, 
sending and processing meeting invitations, applying digital signatures, 
applying message encryption/decryption via a company assigned personal key 
assigned to each employee, etc.  For example, when a meeting invititation 
arrives in the inbox, an entry is placed into the user's calendar with 
markings to indicate an invitation has been issued but no response has been 
given.  When I visit the message in my inbox, it displays buttons for me to 
accept, to tentatively accept, or to decline the invitation.  If I decline 
the invitation, the meeting is automatically removed from my schedule.

As far as I know, Emacs has no support for many of these sophisticated 
features of Outlook.  Unless there is a new Emacs mail package with support 
for Outlook's many features, allowing it to replace Outlook on their PC 
desktop, many engineers are stuck using Outlook to read and to send email 
while they are at work.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: "Kevin Gallagher" <kevin.gal@verizon.net>
Cc: <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2005 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: configure-more.zip


>> Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:22:51 -0500
>> From: "Kevin Gallagher" <kevin.gal@verizon.net>
>> Cc: <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
>>
>> From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
>> > (Btw, I'm amazed to see that you use something other than Emacs for
>> > sending mail.)
>>
>> Ah, I'm not!  It has become a common problem.  Many corporations and
>> universities, today, only support email on MS Windows networked boxes, to
>> which all employees/students have access.  Unix/GNU Linux networks, on 
>> the
>> other hand, are typically used only for product development by those
>> engineers doing the actual work.  Not infrequently, these are isolated
>> networks with no Internet access.
>
> Emacs can be set up for email on a Windows box as well: we have
> smtpmail.el for that.  In fact, I'm using smtpmail like that for quite
> some time with no problems.
>
> So I don't see why would this be ``a common problem''. 

Re: configure-more.zip

[Glenn Morris]

"Kevin Gallagher" wrote:

> company assigned personal key assigned to each employee, etc.  For
> example, when a meeting invititation arrives in the inbox, an entry is
> placed into the user's calendar with markings to indicate an
> invitation has been issued but no response has been given.  When I
> visit the message in my inbox, it displays buttons for me to accept,
> to tentatively accept, or to decline the invitation.  If I decline the
> invitation, the meeting is automatically removed from my schedule.
>
> As far as I know, Emacs has no support for many of these sophisticated
> features of Outlook.

See the "Importing and Exporting Diary Entries" node of the manual.

In particular, diary-from-outlook, diary-from-outlook-gnus,
diary-from-outlook-rmail. I never have to deal with outlook stuff, so
I don't know if this qualifies as "sophisticated".

Re: configure-more.zip

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:24:19 -0500
> From: "Kevin Gallagher" <kevin.gal@verizon.net>
> Cc: <emacs-devel@gnu.org>
> 
> A very large number of companies, today, have tied themselves into using 
> Microsoft Outlook coupled with a Microsoft Exchange Server.

I know about Outlook and Exchange.  If I saw in OP's headers that one
of these beasts was used, I'd shut up (even though the latest
development has import features mentioned by Glenn).  But what I saw
in the headers was Mozilla, so I doubt that Outlook and Exchange are
involved here.

Re: configure-more.zip

[Stefan Monnier]

> Because sending a bat-file was not allowed.

Better send a patch,


        Stefan

Re: configure-more.zip

[Jason Rumney]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> Therefore, I suggest the following strategy for solving the -kb issue:
> put a small C program into the nt subdirectory which would read
> nt/configure.bat, nt/nmake.defs, and nt/makefile.w32-in in binary mode
> and make sure they have the right line endings; if they don't, this
> program would fail.  Then have this program invoked by "make bootstrap"
> in the nt directory.

This won't work. "make bootstrap" must be preceeded by "configure",
and if configure.bat does not have the right line ends, then that will
fail.

Re: configure-more.zip

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 21:15:40 +0100
> 
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Therefore, I suggest the following strategy for solving the -kb issue:
> > put a small C program into the nt subdirectory which would read
> > nt/configure.bat, nt/nmake.defs, and nt/makefile.w32-in in binary mode
> > and make sure they have the right line endings; if they don't, this
> > program would fail.  Then have this program invoked by "make bootstrap"
> > in the nt directory.
> 
> This won't work. "make bootstrap" must be preceeded by "configure",
> and if configure.bat does not have the right line ends, then that will
> fail.

This situation worries me less: if configure.bat fails to run, the
user will know something is wrong with the batch file.  It's the
mysterious error message produced by Make that prompted my suggestion.
I've seen 2 Emacs maintainers trip on this just this last month.

But if you have a better idea, I'm open to suggestions.

(Btw, my testing indicates that cmd.exe from Windows 2K and XP
succeeds running a batch file even if its lines end in the Unix-style
single LF, and also if there's more than one CR character before the
newline.)

Re: configure-more.zip

[Lennart Borgman]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>>This won't work. "make bootstrap" must be preceeded by "configure",
>>and if configure.bat does not have the right line ends, then that will
>>fail.
>>    
>>
>
>This situation worries me less: if configure.bat fails to run, the
>user will know something is wrong with the batch file.  It's the
>mysterious error message produced by Make that prompted my suggestion.
>I've seen 2 Emacs maintainers trip on this just this last month.
>
>But if you have a better idea, I'm open to suggestions.
>
>(Btw, my testing indicates that cmd.exe from Windows 2K and XP
>succeeds running a batch file even if its lines end in the Unix-style
>single LF, and also if there's more than one CR character before the
>newline.)
>  
>
Running a bat file with unix style line ends:

- cmd.exe: Windows 2k: ok, XP: ok, NT: ok
- command.com: Window 2k: ok, others: ??

As I previously have said I suggested testing at the end of 
configure.bat should be a good solution. All that is needed is a small C 
program. Maybe this testing also should be repeated in the Makefile 
though to take care of redownloads.

Re: configure-more.zip

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:38:11 +0200
> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
> CC: Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Running a bat file with unix style line ends:
> 
> - cmd.exe: Windows 2k: ok, XP: ok, NT: ok
> - command.com: Window 2k: ok, others: ??

The only shell I know of that chokes on Unix-style EOLs in batch files
is command.com from Windows 9x and older (i.e. MS-DOS).  I never
tested any of the older shells with several CRs before the LF, so I
don't know what would happen.

> As I previously have said I suggested testing at the end of 
> configure.bat should be a good solution. All that is needed is a small C 
> program. Maybe this testing also should be repeated in the Makefile 
> though to take care of redownloads.

I still don't understand what is wrong with testing _only_ during the
build.  What am I missing?

Re: configure-more.zip

[Lennart Borgman]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>>As I previously have said I suggested testing at the end of 
>>configure.bat should be a good solution. All that is needed is a small C 
>>program. Maybe this testing also should be repeated in the Makefile 
>>though to take care of redownloads.
>>    
>>
>
>I still don't understand what is wrong with testing _only_ during the
>build.  What am I missing?
>  
>
I might be misunderstanding this but is there not a problem starting 
make since Makefile might have this trouble?

Re: configure-more.zip

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 17:28:20 +0200
> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
> CC: jasonr@gnu.org,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> I might be misunderstanding this but is there not a problem starting 
> make since Makefile might have this trouble?

Perhaps so, but unless we understand the gory details of that failure,
we cannot reason about it.  If you can describe and explain what
exactly goes wrong, please do.  (On my machine, I don't think I saw
this particular problem, even when I first checked-out files without
-kb.)

Re: configure-more.zip

[Lennart Borgman]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>>I might be misunderstanding this but is there not a problem starting 
>>make since Makefile might have this trouble?
>>    
>>
>
>Perhaps so, but unless we understand the gory details of that failure,
>we cannot reason about it.  If you can describe and explain what
>exactly goes wrong, please do.  (On my machine, I don't think I saw
>this particular problem, even when I first checked-out files without
>-kb.)
>
Well, here is that black box mystery. I deleted the nt subdirectory and 
checked it out again. I confirm with chkukb.exe (CHK Update KB) that the 
files indeed have that problem now. Then I do

D:\ecvs\bld\emacs\nt>make
', needed by `which-sh'.  Stop.t `

D:\ecvs\bld\emacs\nt>make --debug
GNU Make 3.80
Copyright (C) 2002  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.
There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Reading makefiles...
Updating goal targets....
 File `all' does not exist.
   File `which-sh' does not exist.
' does not exist.
'.  Must remake target `
', needed by `which-sh'.  Stop.t `

D:\ecvs\bld\emacs\nt>make -d

... long (42k) - I pug it here 
http://ourcomments.org/Emacs/DL/more/make-d.tmp

Re: configure-more.zip

[Jason Rumney]

Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> writes:

>  File `all' does not exist.
>    File `which-sh' does not exist.
> ' does not exist.
> '.  Must remake target `
> ', needed by `which-sh'.  Stop.t `

It looks like make is treating the extra ^M as a dependancy.

Re: configure-more.zip

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/3/05, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> (Btw, my testing indicates that cmd.exe from Windows 2K and XP
> succeeds running a batch file even if its lines end in the Unix-style
> single LF, and also if there's more than one CR character before the
> newline.)

Yes!

That's why I didn't realize that I had forgotten the "-kb" incantation
and tripped on the "strange make error" issue. I'm still not sure
whether cmd.exe grokking weird line endings is a feature or a bug
(however was intended by the Microsoft developers)...

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: configure-more.zip

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:31:42 +0200
> From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> I'm still not sure whether cmd.exe grokking weird line endings is a
> feature or a bug

It's almost certainly a feature.

Re: configure-more.zip

[Juanma Barranquero]

> It's almost certainly a feature.

Did I forget to put the smiley? Sorry :-)

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u