From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New build process? Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:15:14 +0200 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87y5zk13vh.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <20110726184220.GA6390@acm.acm> <87bowg6fre.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <4E2F2084.7070001@gmail.com> <8762mo2jeg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1311758137 4137 80.91.229.12 (27 Jul 2011 09:15:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:15:37 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jul 27 11:15:34 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm0DF-0002K5-Bn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:15:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51394 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm0DE-00064k-Mi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:15:32 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55223) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm0DB-00064c-VD for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:15:30 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm0DA-0006yF-QB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:15:29 -0400 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:34219) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm0DA-0006yB-C1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 05:15:28 -0400 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qm0D9-0002JE-8I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:15:27 +0200 Original-Received: from p508eac21.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.142.172.33]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:15:27 +0200 Original-Received: from dak by p508eac21.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:15:27 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 37 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p508eac21.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:CdVW+TxY0Y4cNvShp07yX0QDmjQ= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:142363 Archived-At: Andreas Schwab writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> Andreas Schwab writes: >> >>> Tim Cross writes: >>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Andreas Schwab >>>> wrote: >>>>> Tim Cross writes: >>>>> >>>>>> a typo - their quite common you know. Context usually helps to >>>>>> recognize them. In this case, autogen is probably the most likely >>>>>> candidate :) >>>>> >>>>> What has autogen to do with emacs? >>>>> >>>> >>>> autogen.sh then if you must be pedantic about it, >>> >>> You wrote: "Previously, you ran autoget and now you run ./autogen.sh" >>> (with typo fixed), now you claim: "Previously, you ran autogen.sh and >>> now you run ./autogen.sh". >>> >>> That does not make sense to me. >> >> And it is not what he has written at all. > > In which way does it differ? I fail to see how I could answer this more authoritatively than the original mail. It is not like it has magically vanished from the archives, even if you managed to delete your personal copy. -- David Kastrup