From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Alan Mackenzie Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Yet another bootstrap failure: Required feature `esh-groups' was not provided Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 20:08:21 +0000 Message-ID: <20080607200821.GI1812@muc.de> References: <20080606155915.GA3953@muc.de> <20080606203541.GA1741@muc.de> <20080607095024.GC1812@muc.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1212867999 12404 80.91.229.12 (7 Jun 2008 19:46:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 19:46:39 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rgm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jun 07 21:47:21 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1K54Ni-0002aZ-UZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:47:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:37174 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K54Mv-0002Cz-TN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:46:30 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K54Ms-0002Cs-Fc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:46:26 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K54Mq-0002Cg-VP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:46:25 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36911 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K54Mq-0002Cd-St for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:46:24 -0400 Original-Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:4382 helo=mail.muc.de) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K54Mp-0000C6-VA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jun 2008 15:46:24 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail 72463 invoked by uid 3782); 7 Jun 2008 19:46:22 -0000 Original-Received: from acm.muc.de (pD9E51DC7.dip.t-dialin.net [217.229.29.199]) by colin2.muc.de (tmda-ofmipd) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:46:17 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 25238 invoked by uid 1000); 7 Jun 2008 20:08:21 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/1.1.5 (Fettercairn) X-Primary-Address: acm@muc.de X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: FreeBSD 4.6-4.9 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:98610 Archived-At: Hi, Eli! On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 03:19:31PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2008 09:50:24 +0000 > > Cc: rgm@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > From: Alan Mackenzie [ .... ] > > Our Makefiles simply don't record the dependencies properly. > That might be one reason for the problems, but it isn't the only one. > And if you are talking about Lisp files, their dependencies are not > easy to find out, due to lots of macros implicitly imported at compile > time via `require'. It can't be that difficult; lisp is designed for this type of manipulation. > Perhaps we should first improve our infrastructure: how about a switch > to Emacs, like the -MD switch to GCC, that would cause it to generate > a Make include file with dependencies as a side effect of byte > compilation? Without help from the byte compiler, I'd consider any > additional dependencies for Lisp files an unjustified maintenance > burden, because those dependencies will need to be updated any time > some `require' line somewhere is added, deleted, or modified. The dependencies absolutely must be generated automatically. Whether this should be done by the byte-compiler or a separate script isn't clear (yet). Such a separate script could probably be run in temacs, creating the dependencies very early in the build process. > > > I agree that it would be great to have more, but it's a lot of work, > > > and the results cannot be reasonably tested in practice, since the > > > number of different ways you can screw up your sandbox is infinite. > > Agree, agree, disagree, agree. It may not be possible for a build to > > work all the time, but it could be made to work nearly all the time. I > > think; I hope. > It's fruitless to argue with hopes, so I won't. Oh, you cynical person. ;-) > > :-) I conjecture that it's updating sporadically rather than > > continually that causes the pain. > "Regularly" doesn't mean every day; it could mean once a week or once > in a fortnight. "Sporadically", for me, means once a month or once every two months. > > > > May: 7 > > > > April: 9 > > > > March: 9 > > > > February: 2 > > > That's expected, in a trunk that is actively developed by many > > > contributors at once. > > ????? Do you know whether it happens in other projects with ~20 > > active developers? > None of the projects I'm involved with that have something similar to > "bootstrap" use the kind of ``fire at will'' commit policy we use in > Emacs. Those other projects all have some kind of mandatory > review-before-commit policy for all but a few extremely trusted > developers. At peer review time, problems can be detected before they > do any harm. One kind of "peer review" we could do is doing a build test as part of the commission process. This might be a bit heavy on server CPU time. > > OK. I have an utterly standard, if somewhat old, GNU/Linux box, > > probably the most popular setup. I think it's reasonable to expect > > the trunk to build on my box nearly all the time. > What is a ``standard GNU/Linux box''? Is it 32-bit or 64-bit? What > kernel version do you use, and what version of glibc? What compiler > version? For what it's worth: 32-bit; Linux acm 2.6.8 #7 Wed May 23 18:12:53 BST 2007 i686 GNU/Linux. glibc: don't know, how do you display the version number? gcc (GCC) 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13) I can't honestly see that it's worth that much. Won't Emacs compile with pretty much any Linux version, any GCC and any GLIBC? -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).