From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Glenn Morris Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Need help with upstream vs Debian emacs-23.4 + emacs-24.1 build differences Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:06:35 -0400 Message-ID: References: <1340924981.32095.176.camel@hp.my.own.domain> <1340956879.32095.215.camel@hp.my.own.domain> <1341263428.16363.14.camel@x60> <1341488866.13218.31.camel@s1499.it.kth.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1341504412 21025 80.91.229.3 (5 Jul 2012 16:06:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 16:06:52 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Andreas Schwab , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Svante Signell Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 05 18:06:51 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SmoZu-0007UY-LD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:06:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54955 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SmoZt-0003UX-HW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:06:49 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:56878) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SmoZn-0003TT-69 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:06:47 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SmoZg-0004R4-U8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:06:42 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:58177) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SmoZg-0004R0-Qu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:06:36 -0400 Original-Received: from rgm by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SmoZf-0000zx-BO; Thu, 05 Jul 2012 12:06:35 -0400 X-Spook: Uzbekistan bomb Sears Tower Elvis Serbian NSA ARPA jihad X-Ran: ^uK{JOdk;'S4\Kj$brs}Qs1_R7e1=)jR&Z49)ykd@EGH2k\Jb[_Z""1-bV(mP6wneQ@/b0 X-Hue: magenta X-Attribution: GM In-Reply-To: <1341488866.13218.31.camel@s1499.it.kth.se> (Svante Signell's message of "Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:47:46 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus (www.gnus.org), GNU Emacs (www.gnu.org/software/emacs/) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 208.118.235.10 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:151436 Archived-At: Svante Signell wrote: > Still the buildds have problems building the Debian version. From the > build logs one can see there are differences mainly due to the autoloads > target. What is triggering that one, timestamps of files, anything else? Generally speaking, yes; if the timestamp of a *.el file under lisp is newer than that of the associated loaddef file, the latter will get updated. Actually, "sometimes" md5sums are used rather than timestamp, but in the diffs you showed it looked like timestamps. (Don't suppose Emacs's md5 somehow behaves oddly for you?) > cp -a should be the same, right? Yes; AFAIK. >> I think the problem lies in the loaddefs.el being regenerated by the >> autoloads. My problem is that I don't know why it happens, compared to >> the tarball. AFAIK, it should only be timestamp/md5sum issues. Patching lisp files will of course change their timestamp... Can you find the minimum sequence starting from a normal tarfile that causes the issue? But, it looked to me like the loaddefs diff just showed the same information being included twice? Is that right? I still think that while that is incorrect, it should not be harmful in itself.