From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Build failure on Windows Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 18:23:23 +0200 Message-ID: <83r329gio4.fsf@gnu.org> References: <58BBE663.4020207@gmx.at> <86zih0yoid.fsf@gmail.com> <58BC125E.9090701@gmx.at> <83fuirkas2.fsf@gnu.org> <58BC51EC.70300@gmx.at> <834lz7jxuf.fsf@gnu.org> <58BC8313.40604@gmx.at> <83varnhyld.fsf@gnu.org> <58BD19A8.3040709@gmx.at> <83lgsiie08.fsf@gnu.org> <58BDA054.2070902@gmx.at> <838toii6mw.fsf@gnu.org> <58BE812C.2030606@gmx.at> <83y3whgkga.fsf@gnu.org> <58BEDC37.7020405@gmx.at> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1488903907 989 195.159.176.226 (7 Mar 2017 16:25:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2017 16:25:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: andrewjmoreton@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: martin rudalics Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Mar 07 17:25:00 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1clHuw-0007qd-G2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:24:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51527 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clHv1-0001pg-0v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:24:59 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59614) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clHu0-0001ni-CD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:23:57 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clHtw-000734-BX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:23:56 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:39470) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1clHtw-00072k-80; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:23:52 -0500 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4045 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1clHtv-0000cg-C6; Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:23:51 -0500 In-reply-to: <58BEDC37.7020405@gmx.at> (message from martin rudalics on Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:13:43 +0100) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:212815 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:13:43 +0100 > From: martin rudalics > CC: andrewjmoreton@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > >> 1. If you want to build Emacs outside of the source tree > >> (recommended), create the build directory and chdir there. > >> > >> Maybe we should remove that recommendation? > > > > I don't see why. Your problems are all related to outdated Lisp > > files, so out-of-tree builds are unlikely to be a factor. (Which > > means I again don't understand why you report a perceptible > > degradation in build success rates, while I don't see anything close > > to that.) > > Was the gnulib.mk issue from my first message in this thread related to > out-of-tree building? I think so. But the problems you cite as being the reason for most failed builds are unrelated to gnulib.mk (which only changed once or twice recently). > > >> - The "require cl-lib" ones - by far the largest group and by far the > >> greatest annoyance. Do we really need cl-lib in preloaded Elisp? OK, > >> this ship sailed long ago ... > >> > >> - More specific cl-generic.el related errors. IIRC usually something > >> about cl-defgeneric but I don't recall the precise text any more. > >> probably a subgroup of the first one. > >> > >> - Something I certainly never saw before about invalid bytecode. > > > > These are all related to outdated *.elc files. > > OK. I never saw these in the past years. Maybe I was just lucky. Or maybe we have more people now working on macros that could potentially break a build. > Yes. BTW, all rebuilds in the past minutes had configure run > automatically and succeeded without problems. So maybe the issue is > resolved. It should be.