On Sat, Nov 11, 2017, at 08:33 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> From: Stefan Monnier >> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:46:09 -0500 >> >> For lack of familiarity with the Windows world, I don't know if >> typical>> Windows users will want to add it to PATH (as a GNU/Linux user, of >> course I'd do that), but I think the "frequently" above is incorrect.> Maybe I'm missing something. 29 packages (out of 166) in ELPA have a> Makefile. Taking just one random Makefile, company/Makefile, I see > this: > > EMACS=emacs > [...] > > compile: > ${EMACS} -Q --batch -L . -f batch-byte-compile company.el company- > *.el> > If this Makefile is invoked with "make compile", it clearly expects > Emacs to be found along PATH. And even if Make is invoked from Emacs,> the directory where the Emacs binary was found is not added to PATH. > So how can this work without Emacs's binary being on PATH? And what > am I missing here? > Not meaning to come off as any final authority here, but speaking as someone deeply familiar with the Windows-platform (decades user- experience, 10+ MS developer certifications, lalala)... With the clause that I'm not som much a C/C++ kind of guy... The most obvious problem these packages will encounter is that make (GNU make, or any other variant) is typically not installed on regular end- user Windows machines. It's not part of the regular Windows developer toolchain, which typically relies on MSBuild instead. Expecting "make" to be available is something I would consider a portability- problem *with the package*, and I honestly don't think this is the Emacs- installer's job to put in place. -- Regards Jostein Kjønigsen jostein@kjonigsen.net