make on Windows vs. Linux

make on Windows vs. Linux

[Christoph]

Under Linux I like the fact, that I can check out, for example, the 
trunk, make a change, run make and then run Emacs from the src/ 
directory directly without installing it via make install.

Under Windows, this is not possible. After running make the binaries are 
not in the bin/ directory. I have to run make install to get everything 
in the right place. But an in-place make install also adds a Start menu 
shortcut. For test builds or branches this is just polluting my start menu.

Is there any good reason why the Windows make could not result in Emacs 
runnable 'in-place' out-of-the-box? And make install could add the 
shortcut and (if applicable) move the appropriate files to the directory 
specified as the install path during configure?

Or am I missing something?

Christoph

Re: make on Windows vs. Linux

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:47:02 -0600
> From: Christoph <cschol2112@googlemail.com>
> 
> Under Linux I like the fact, that I can check out, for example, the 
> trunk, make a change, run make and then run Emacs from the src/ 
> directory directly without installing it via make install.
> 
> Under Windows, this is not possible. After running make the binaries are 
> not in the bin/ directory. I have to run make install to get everything 
> in the right place. But an in-place make install also adds a Start menu 
> shortcut. For test builds or branches this is just polluting my start menu.
> 
> Is there any good reason why the Windows make could not result in Emacs 
> runnable 'in-place' out-of-the-box? And make install could add the 
> shortcut and (if applicable) move the appropriate files to the directory 
> specified as the install path during configure?
> 
> Or am I missing something?

I think you are missing the fact that you can run Emacs in-place from
a subdirectory of src:

   src\oo\i386\emacs -Q

or

   src\oo-spd\i386\emacs -Q

(the former if you configured --no-opt, the latter if without).

Re: make on Windows vs. Linux

[Christoph]

On 7/10/2010 9:57 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> Is there any good reason why the Windows make could not result in Emacs
>> runnable 'in-place' out-of-the-box? And make install could add the
>> shortcut and (if applicable) move the appropriate files to the directory
>> specified as the install path during configure?
>>
>> Or am I missing something?
>
> I think you are missing the fact that you can run Emacs in-place from
> a subdirectory of src:
>
>     src\oo\i386\emacs -Q

Duh! OK, I was running 'runemacs.exe' from nt\oo-spd\i386, which didn't 
work and it didn't even occur to me to look in the src\ directory.

Thanks Eli. This works fine.

Christoph

Re: make on Windows vs. GNU/Linux

[Richard Stallman]

While discussing how to use Emacs on Windows, please remember that
the other system you're contrasting it with is not Linux.

Linux by itself is not a complete system comparable to Windows.  Linux
is a kernel, one component of the system.  You must have in mind the
GNU/Linux system, which is a complete system comparable to Windows.

GNU is our work; to call the system "Linux" is to give the credit for
our work to someone who came later and did less.  So please call the
system "GNU/Linux" when you talk about it.  For more explanation, see
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html and
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html.

Thanks in advance for giving us credit.