Compile for batching

Compile for batching

[Kristian Nygaard Jensen]

Hi All,

I would like to know if it is possible to compile emacs for batching only.

I am aware of the options: '--without-x --without-all --without-dbus 
--without-gconf --without-gsettings'.

Is it possible to compile emacs without any user interface at all.


Kind regards

Kristian

Re: Compile for batching

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Kristian Nygaard Jensen <kristian@freeduck.dk>
> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 22:14:40 +0200
> 
> Is it possible to compile emacs without any user interface at all.

What do you mean by "without any user interface"?  Which parts of
Emacs would you like to lose?

Re: Compile for batching

[Kristian Nygaard Jensen]

On 16/08/18 04:41, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Kristian Nygaard Jensen <kristian@freeduck.dk>
>> Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2018 22:14:40 +0200
>>
>> Is it possible to compile emacs without any user interface at all.
> What do you mean by "without any user interface"?  Which parts of
> Emacs would you like to lose?
>
The editing part. I would like to be able to do emacs -Q --batch --eval, 
but I have no need for typing stuff into buffers in this use case.

Re: Compile for batching

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Kristian Nygaard Jensen <kristian@freeduck.dk>
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 08:16:03 +0200
> 
> > What do you mean by "without any user interface"?  Which parts of
> > Emacs would you like to lose?
> >
> The editing part. I would like to be able to do emacs -Q --batch --eval, 
> but I have no need for typing stuff into buffers in this use case.

(I guess the --eval argument will do some editing, because otherwise
all you'd be able doing is numerical calculations, and that will make
Emacs pretty much useless.)

No, there's no such option, if I understand you correctly.  Emacs
cannot work without at least one buffer and one window, even in batch
mode (though it never displays that window under -batch).

Re: Compile for batching

[Kristian Nygaard Jensen]

On 16/08/18 15:34, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Kristian Nygaard Jensen <kristian@freeduck.dk>
>> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 08:16:03 +0200
>>
>>> What do you mean by "without any user interface"?  Which parts of
>>> Emacs would you like to lose?
>>>
>> The editing part. I would like to be able to do emacs -Q --batch --eval,
>> but I have no need for typing stuff into buffers in this use case.
> (I guess the --eval argument will do some editing, because otherwise
> all you'd be able doing is numerical calculations, and that will make
> Emacs pretty much useless.)
>
> No, there's no such option, if I understand you correctly.  Emacs
> cannot work without at least one buffer and one window, even in batch
> mode (though it never displays that window under -batch).
>
My primary use case is to tangle and export emacs org babel documents 
from inside docker.

So buffers are fine I just don't need to actually type anything

Re: Compile for batching

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Kristian Nygaard Jensen <kristian@freeduck.dk>
> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:14:16 +0200
> 
> My primary use case is to tangle and export emacs org babel documents 
> from inside docker.
> 
> So buffers are fine I just don't need to actually type anything

If you eliminate typing, you also eliminate any means of communicating
with the user.  Even in batch mode, there's sometimes the need to ask
a question and get a response.  And even SIGINT interruption goes
through the input code.

But in any case, there's no option I know of to build an Emacs that
doesn't try reading input when it's idle.

Re: Compile for batching

[Kristian Nygaard Jensen]

On 17/08/18 09:36, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Kristian Nygaard Jensen <kristian@freeduck.dk>
>> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 09:14:16 +0200
>>
>> My primary use case is to tangle and export emacs org babel documents
>> from inside docker.
>>
>> So buffers are fine I just don't need to actually type anything
> If you eliminate typing, you also eliminate any means of communicating
> with the user.  Even in batch mode, there's sometimes the need to ask
> a question and get a response.  And even SIGINT interruption goes
> through the input code.
>
> But in any case, there's no option I know of to build an Emacs that
> doesn't try reading input when it's idle.
>
OK thank you

Re: Compile for batching

[Kaushal Modi]

Hello Kristian,

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 3:15 AM Kristian Nygaard Jensen <kristian@freeduck.dk>
wrote:

>
> My primary use case is to tangle and export emacs org babel documents
> from inside docker.
>

I don't know how to use docker. But I recently heard about docker-emacs[0]
project. See if using that helps. May be you can then skip creating a
docker container yourself.

Kaushal

[0]: https://github.com/Silex/docker-emacs

> --

Kaushal Modi

Re: Compile for batching

[Kristian Nygaard Jensen]

On 17/08/18 12:49, Kaushal Modi wrote:
> Hello Kristian,
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018, 3:15 AM Kristian Nygaard Jensen <kristian@freeduck.dk>
> wrote:
>
>> My primary use case is to tangle and export emacs org babel documents
>> from inside docker.
>>
> I don't know how to use docker. But I recently heard about docker-emacs[0]
> project. See if using that helps. May be you can then skip creating a
> docker container yourself.
>
> Kaushal
>
> [0]: https://github.com/Silex/docker-emacs
>
>> --
> Kaushal Modi

Thank you I will have a look at that

Re: Compile for batching

[Michael Albinus]

Kristian Nygaard Jensen <kristian@freeduck.dk> writes:

Hi Kristian,

> My primary use case is to tangle and export emacs org babel documents
> from inside docker.

On MELPA, there is the package docker-tramp. With this you can use your
local Emacs to access files in docker containers.

Best regards, Michael.

Re: Compile for batching

[Nurullah Akkaya]

On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Kristian Nygaard Jensen <
kristian@freeduck.dk> wrote:

> On 16/08/18 15:34, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
>> From: Kristian Nygaard Jensen <kristian@freeduck.dk>
>>> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 08:16:03 +0200
>>>
>>> What do you mean by "without any user interface"?  Which parts of
>>>> Emacs would you like to lose?
>>>>
>>>> The editing part. I would like to be able to do emacs -Q --batch --eval,
>>> but I have no need for typing stuff into buffers in this use case.
>>>
>> (I guess the --eval argument will do some editing, because otherwise
>> all you'd be able doing is numerical calculations, and that will make
>> Emacs pretty much useless.)
>>
>> No, there's no such option, if I understand you correctly.  Emacs
>> cannot work without at least one buffer and one window, even in batch
>> mode (though it never displays that window under -batch).
>>
>> My primary use case is to tangle and export emacs org babel documents
> from inside docker.
>
> So buffers are fine I just don't need to actually type anything
>
>
>
See [1] included makefile run emacs in batch mode, opens an org-mode file
then tangles source and html from it inside a docker container.

[1] https://github.com/nakkaya/ferret



-- 
Nurullah Akkaya
http://nakkaya.com