From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Files from gnulib Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:24:11 -0800 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <4D3F3F7B.40402@cs.ucla.edu> References: <83y66bzuhc.fsf@gnu.org> <4D3C81A1.70009@cs.ucla.edu> <83ipxfymox.fsf@gnu.org> <4D3E0A8E.1030400@cs.ucla.edu> <8362tdzl7m.fsf@gnu.org> <4D3E8E4C.1010000@cs.ucla.edu> <4D3F1171.5010201@cs.ucla.edu> <83y668yfgt.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1295990674 458 80.91.229.12 (25 Jan 2011 21:24:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:24:34 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@stupidchicken.com, bug-gnulib@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: bug-gnulib-bounces+gnu-bug-gnulib=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 25 22:24:28 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gnu-bug-gnulib@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PhqNH-0006zV-PF for gnu-bug-gnulib@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:24:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56376 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PhqNG-0000m2-VK for gnu-bug-gnulib@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:24:27 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=41447 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PhqN9-0000lr-B6 for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:24:20 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PhqN8-0004G9-2f for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:24:19 -0500 Original-Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.62]:51445) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PhqN7-0004FB-Pq; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 16:24:18 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A1F39E80F5; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:24:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oV9lXrp2EX0g; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:24:12 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from [131.179.64.200] (Penguin.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.64.200]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A62039E80DF; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:24:12 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101208 Thunderbird/3.1.7 In-Reply-To: <83y668yfgt.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: bug-gnulib@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Gnulib discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnulib-bounces+gnu-bug-gnulib=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnulib-bounces+gnu-bug-gnulib=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs:24928 gmane.emacs.devel:134962 Archived-At: On 01/25/11 11:02, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > To read the instructions, you need to unpack the archive first. That may have been true years ago, when the tarballs themselves were the main way that one could find out how to do maintenance. But that long ago stopped being true for Emacs. If I wanted to come up to speed on how to build Emacs for MS-DOS, the first thing I'd do would be a Google search, which would point me at places like and . If these places contain extraction instructions, that's good enough. >> djtar -n emacs-25.chg emacs-25.tgz > We use something like that in GDB, and the result is extremely > fragile and error-prone, Even if -n is currently error-prone in GDB, that does not mean that the approach is inherently error-prone, or that it must be error-prone in Emacs. For example, it should be pretty easy to check emacs-25.chg automatically; is that done with GDB? If not, and if checking is done by hand, I can understand why it might be error-prone; but an automated check should substantially reduce the number of errors. > If the decision is not to rename these few files in the Emacs > distribution, and instead ask me to cope with these complications, I > will understand that the knee-jerk reaction of too many members of > this community when they hear "MS-DOS" is more important that any > voice of reason I hope that you don't include me in members whose knees are jerking. Personally I would just rename the files in gnulib and be done with it, as none of the name changes seem to be onerous. However, we don't seem to have consensus for that now; I seem to be the only gnulib developer who would go that route. Also, the problem of non-8+3 file names does not seem to be limited to gnulib-derived files. All in all it sounds like automating the renaming on the MS-DOS side would be a reasonable thing to do. This is a bit of work but doesn't seem that hard. And if we get the automation working well with Emacs we could then apply similar ideas to GDB as well, and make GDB development less error-prone on MS-DOS.