bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Ali M.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 123 bytes --]

Can you please provide the windows binaries for release 29.4

https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/emacs-29/

Regards
Ali

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 273 bytes --]

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: "Ali M." <tclwarrior@gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 09:27:51 -0400
> 
> Can you please provide the windows binaries for release 29.4 
> 
> https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/emacs-29/

Corwin (CC'ed) said he will do that when he has time.

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Corwin Brust]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 462 bytes --]

I return from overseas July 3rd.  I will publish ASAP upon my return.  I
don't have any machine running windows with me.

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 16:00 Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> > From: "Ali M." <tclwarrior@gmail.com>
> > Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 09:27:51 -0400
> >
> > Can you please provide the windows binaries for release 29.4
> >
> > https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/emacs-29/
>
> Corwin (CC'ed) said he will do that when he has time.
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 979 bytes --]

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Drew Adams via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 176 bytes --]

Thanks for doing this, Corwin.

From: Corwin Brust
I return from overseas July 3rd.  I will publish ASAP upon my return.  I don't have any machine running windows with me.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2796 bytes --]

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Corwin Brust]

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 5:27 PM Drew Adams via Bug reports for GNU
Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors <bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
wrote:
>
> Thanks for doing this, Corwin.
>

My pleasure, Drew.  Thanks for your kind words, as always.

This is completed and I'm able to see the binaries for Emacs 29.4 from
the (primary) FTP.

https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/emacs-29/?C=M;O=D

TIA for confirmation these work for others, given which this report
can be closed.

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Drew Adams via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors]

> > Thanks for doing this, Corwin.
> >
> 
> My pleasure, Drew.  Thanks for your kind words, as always.
> 
> This is completed and I'm able to see the binaries for Emacs 29.4 from
> the (primary) FTP.
> 
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/emacs-
> 29/?C=M;O=D__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!MXgVi9bfKI0IpDwAqhYoS6smPUL4j69nJzkzkdQaOq
> Tx8pA9Uh48iIMrO5o9dItg8XubL1e_59nvKx0$
> 
> TIA for confirmation these work for others, given which this report
> can be closed.

Thanks, Corwin.  I started it with a Windows
shortcut that uses "Target:"

Z:\path\to\bin\runemacs.exe -Q --debug-init "w:\path\to\a\dir"

and that uses "Start in:" w:\path\to\a\dir

It seems to start OK but I get this warning repeated
periodically (forever) in buffer *Warnings*:

 ■  Warning (comp): x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc-11.3.0: fatal error: cannot execute 'as': CreateProcess: No such file or directory

I haven't noticed other problems yet (with -Q), but
is the continual emission of that warning expected?

Clicking that black, square icon pops up this
question as a menu:

  Suppress `comp' warnings?
  _________________________

  Yes, Ignore `Comp' Warnings Completely
  No, Just Disable Showing Them
  Quit And Do Nothing

I have no idea what any of that means.  It doesn't
seem very helpful - no link to any other info etc.

I also notice that if I put point on that icon and
hit RET I get the question in the minibuffer, but
with the additional key `?' highlighted (no such
option in the menu version).

I hit `?' and this is shown in buffer *Multiple
Choice Help*:

Suppress `comp' warnings? 

y: yes, ignore `comp'    n: no, just disable      q: quit and do
warnings completely      showing them             nothing

That "help" text seems worse than useless.

I guess this "help" is new UI intended to somehow
help users.  To me it seems only to confuse and
obfuscate, and in a fairly heavy-handed way.

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> CC: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, Ali M. <tclwarrior@gmail.com>,
>         "71801@debbugs.gnu.org" <71801@debbugs.gnu.org>
> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 16:04:40 +0000
> 
> Thanks, Corwin.  I started it with a Windows
> shortcut that uses "Target:"
> 
> Z:\path\to\bin\runemacs.exe -Q --debug-init "w:\path\to\a\dir"
> 
> and that uses "Start in:" w:\path\to\a\dir
> 
> It seems to start OK but I get this warning repeated
> periodically (forever) in buffer *Warnings*:
> 
>  ■  Warning (comp): x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc-11.3.0: fatal error: cannot execute 'as': CreateProcess: No such file or directory

You need to install GNU Binutils, which is where as.exe, the GNU
assembler, comes from.  (If GCC that emits the above error message is
part of the Emacs installation, then Corwin should make sure Binutils
are part of the installation as well.)

> I haven't noticed other problems yet (with -Q), but
> is the continual emission of that warning expected?

Yes.

> Clicking that black, square icon pops up this
> question as a menu:
> 
>   Suppress `comp' warnings?
>   _________________________
> 
>   Yes, Ignore `Comp' Warnings Completely
>   No, Just Disable Showing Them
>   Quit And Do Nothing
> 
> I have no idea what any of that means.

It allows you to disable these warnings, so that they don't annoy you.

> It doesn't seem very helpful - no link to any other info etc.

I'm not sure I understand what other info is needed.  The warning says

  Warning (comp): SOMETHING

and the prompt asks about suppressing "comp" warnings, which fits the
warning ID.  You are showed 3 possible answers with the meaning of
each one of them.  What is not clear here?

> I also notice that if I put point on that icon and
> hit RET I get the question in the minibuffer, but
> with the additional key `?' highlighted (no such
> option in the menu version).
> 
> I hit `?' and this is shown in buffer *Multiple
> Choice Help*:
> 
> Suppress `comp' warnings? 
> 
> y: yes, ignore `comp'    n: no, just disable      q: quit and do
> warnings completely      showing them             nothing
> 
> That "help" text seems worse than useless.

It just repeats what was in the menu.

> I guess this "help" is new UI intended to somehow
> help users.  To me it seems only to confuse and
> obfuscate, and in a fairly heavy-handed way.

If you think about it for a few moments, I'm sure you will see the
light.  It's really very simple.

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Drew Adams via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors]

> > It seems to start OK but I get this warning repeated
> > periodically (forever) in buffer *Warnings*:
> >
> >  ■  Warning (comp): x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc-11.3.0: fatal error: cannot
> execute 'as': CreateProcess: No such file or directory
> 
> You need to install GNU Binutils, which is where as.exe, the GNU
> assembler, comes from.

Why?  What is it, where to get it, and how to
install it?

And there's nothing in that warning tells you
anything about having to "install GNU Binutils".

We've never had to install any additional
executables for Emacs on Windows before now.

If you want image support or grep support etc.,
then yes, you've needed to download other stuff,
but never just to run Emacs - the Emacs binary
suffices.  And you saw no warnings if you didn't
download that other stuff.

> (If GCC that emits the above error message is
> part of the Emacs installation, then Corwin should make sure Binutils
> are part of the installation as well.)

Corwin: Please do whatever is appropriate/needed.
Thank you.

> > I haven't noticed other problems yet (with -Q), but
> > is the continual emission of that warning expected?
> 
> Yes.

Why is that a good thing to do?  This is like a
fire alarm that keeps blasting till someone turns
it off.  Is that really appropriate here?

> > Clicking that black, square icon pops up this
> > question as a menu:
> >
> >   Suppress `comp' warnings?
> >   _________________________
> >
> >   Yes, Ignore `Comp' Warnings Completely
> >   No, Just Disable Showing Them
> >   Quit And Do Nothing
> >
> > I have no idea what any of that means.
> 
> It allows you to disable these warnings, so that they don't annoy you.

Sure.  But _what are_ `Comp' warnings?  How is
someone to know whether they might want to (or
need to) ignore, disable, or do nothing?

Expecting someone to decide which to do makes
no sense if they have no idea what the meaning
or consequences are (beyond not seeing msgs).

Warnings should be for things that you need to
be WARNed about.  If this is one such thing,
then we should tell users what the "this" is.

 *****
 WARNING - there's a FOOBAR in the vicinity!
 Quick!  What do you want to do about it?
 *****

> > It doesn't seem very helpful - no link to any other info etc.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what other info is needed.  The warning says
> 
>   Warning (comp): SOMETHING
> 
> and the prompt asks about suppressing "comp" warnings, which fits the
> warning ID.  You are showed 3 possible answers with the meaning of
> each one of them.  What is not clear here?

Nothing is clear.  I'm a user.  I didn't build
Emacs.  I see this:

 x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc-11.3.0: fatal error: cannot
 execute 'as': CreateProcess: No such file or directory

Is that a problem?  I'm warned about it, so I
guess maybe it is.  Is it a problem that I'm
expected, and that I can, do something about?
If so, what needs to be done?

> > I also notice that if I put point on that icon and
> > hit RET I get the question in the minibuffer, but
> > with the additional key `?' highlighted (no such
> > option in the menu version).
> >
> > I hit `?' and this is shown in buffer *Multiple
> > Choice Help*:
> >
> > Suppress `comp' warnings?
> >
> > y: yes, ignore `comp'    n: no, just disable      q: quit and do
> > warnings completely      showing them             nothing
> >
> > That "help" text seems worse than useless.
> 
> It just repeats what was in the menu.

And you're just repeating what I reported.
Why have the `?' and `RET' binding, which
just repeats the text you're clicking `?'
for help about?

`?', like an `i' Information icon, should
tell you something different, or something
more, than the text you're already looking at.

> > I guess this "help" is new UI intended to somehow
> > help users.  To me it seems only to confuse and
> > obfuscate, and in a fairly heavy-handed way.
> 
> If you think about it for a few moments, I'm sure you will see the
> light.  It's really very simple.

If you think about it for a few moments, I
hope you'll see it's either misguided or
it's missing something.

We get a "security fix" point release, and
the first thing seen is an indecipherable,
continually popped-up scary WARNING.  No
help from Emacs to understand what's involved -
what the danger/problem is, or what to do
about it.

And your response is that this is all OK
and expected?

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Corwin Brust]

On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 2:33 PM Drew Adams via Bug reports for GNU
Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors <bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
wrote:
>
> > (If GCC that emits the above error message is
> > part of the Emacs installation, then Corwin should make sure Binutils
> > are part of the installation as well.)
>
> Corwin: Please do whatever is appropriate/needed.
> Thank you.
>

I can see that I did include DLLs for GCC/GCCJIT with Emacs binaries
for Windows.   I will rebuild and republish ensuring those are
omitted.  I think that we do not want to distribute all of GCC with
the Emacs binaries (nor do we want to distribute the corresponding
source archives for MSYS' GCC, which may be more to the point).   That
said, I would be open to including GCC/GCCJIT (and thus binutils); I
think that is little enough extra work for me but is simply more to
store on the various GNU/FSF infrastructure backing FTP (and for all
of the mirrors, of course).  In any event, I'll republish.  If we want
to make adjustments to what ships with Emacs binaries for Windows we
can take that on for Emacs 30.

Much appreciate your looking into this so quickly (to say nothing of
actually spotting problems, yey).

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Drew Adams via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors]

> In any event, I'll republish.  If we want
> to make adjustments to what ships with Emacs binaries for Windows we
> can take that on for Emacs 30.
> 
> Much appreciate your looking into this so quickly (to say nothing of
> actually spotting problems, yey).

Thanks for looking into this.

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Corwin Brust]

On Fri, Jul 5, 2024 at 4:52 PM Corwin Brust <corwin@bru.st> wrote:
>
> I can see that I did include DLLs for GCC/GCCJIT with Emacs binaries
> for Windows.   I will rebuild and republish ensuring those are
> omitted.

I have now republished Emacs 29.4 binaries for Windows (excluding the
-nodeps version which has not changed - the installer and "full"
emacs-29.4.zip have had libgccjit-0.dll removed.).  I have also added
a sha256sum file, which I neglected to do initially.

I think installing (or unzipping) one of these will resolve the issue
but TIA for any contradiction (or reports of other issues encountered,
of course).

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Drew Adams via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors]

> > I can see that I did include DLLs for GCC/GCCJIT with Emacs binaries
> > for Windows.   I will rebuild and republish ensuring those are
> > omitted.
> 
> I have now republished Emacs 29.4 binaries for Windows (excluding the
> -nodeps version which has not changed - the installer and "full"
> emacs-29.4.zip have had libgccjit-0.dll removed.).  I have also added
> a sha256sum file, which I neglected to do initially.
> 
> I think installing (or unzipping) one of these will resolve the issue
> but TIA for any contradiction (or reports of other issues encountered,
> of course).

I downloaded emacs-29.4.zip and it seems to
work (like 29.3).  Thanks for doing this, Corwin.

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> CC: "corwin@bru.st" <corwin@bru.st>,
>         "tclwarrior@gmail.com"
> 	<tclwarrior@gmail.com>,
>         "71801@debbugs.gnu.org" <71801@debbugs.gnu.org>
> Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 19:33:21 +0000
> 
> > > It seems to start OK but I get this warning repeated
> > > periodically (forever) in buffer *Warnings*:
> > >
> > >  ■  Warning (comp): x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc-11.3.0: fatal error: cannot
> > execute 'as': CreateProcess: No such file or directory
> > 
> > You need to install GNU Binutils, which is where as.exe, the GNU
> > assembler, comes from.
> 
> Why?

It's needed for JIT native compilation of Lisp.

> > > I haven't noticed other problems yet (with -Q), but
> > > is the continual emission of that warning expected?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> Why is that a good thing to do?

It isn't supposed to happen in a working Emacs installation.  Its
absence is like the absence of dired.el/dired.elc: it should not
happen.  So by default Emacs warns about it every time it wants to
natively compile a file.

> > > Clicking that black, square icon pops up this
> > > question as a menu:
> > >
> > >   Suppress `comp' warnings?
> > >   _________________________
> > >
> > >   Yes, Ignore `Comp' Warnings Completely
> > >   No, Just Disable Showing Them
> > >   Quit And Do Nothing
> > >
> > > I have no idea what any of that means.
> > 
> > It allows you to disable these warnings, so that they don't annoy you.
> 
> Sure.  But _what are_ `Comp' warnings?

They are the warnings labeled 'comp', as in the warning you've shown.

> How is someone to know whether they might want to (or need to)
> ignore, disable, or do nothing?

By reading the warnings, understanding what they say and mean, and
deciding what to do with them.  It's a user decision.  Isn't it you
that always requests to let the users the freedom of deciding how to
deal with non-trivial situations?  That's what Emacs does there.

> Expecting someone to decide which to do makes
> no sense if they have no idea what the meaning
> or consequences are (beyond not seeing msgs).

We expect our users to understand the warnings and make the above
decision, yes.

> Warnings should be for things that you need to
> be WARNed about.  If this is one such thing,
> then we should tell users what the "this" is.
> 
>  *****
>  WARNING - there's a FOOBAR in the vicinity!
>  Quick!  What do you want to do about it?
>  *****

That's an unfair comparison.  The warning in question did tell you
what was the problem: a specific program was missing or could not be
found.

> >   Warning (comp): SOMETHING
> > 
> > and the prompt asks about suppressing "comp" warnings, which fits the
> > warning ID.  You are showed 3 possible answers with the meaning of
> > each one of them.  What is not clear here?
> 
> Nothing is clear.  I'm a user.  I didn't build
> Emacs.  I see this:
> 
>  x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc-11.3.0: fatal error: cannot
>  execute 'as': CreateProcess: No such file or directory
> 
> Is that a problem?  I'm warned about it, so I
> guess maybe it is.  Is it a problem that I'm
> expected, and that I can, do something about?
> If so, what needs to be done?

What needs to be done is find out why GCC could not fine 'as', and fix
that.  Alternatively, you can just shut up the warnings if you don't
want to know about that.  See the text popped up by the GUI dialog or
shown by '?' that explains how to deal with that warning.

> > > I also notice that if I put point on that icon and
> > > hit RET I get the question in the minibuffer, but
> > > with the additional key `?' highlighted (no such
> > > option in the menu version).
> > >
> > > I hit `?' and this is shown in buffer *Multiple
> > > Choice Help*:
> > >
> > > Suppress `comp' warnings?
> > >
> > > y: yes, ignore `comp'    n: no, just disable      q: quit and do
> > > warnings completely      showing them             nothing
> > >
> > > That "help" text seems worse than useless.
> > 
> > It just repeats what was in the menu.
> 
> And you're just repeating what I reported.
> Why have the `?' and `RET' binding, which
> just repeats the text you're clicking `?'
> for help about?

It adds some information about the possible responses, something that
in the case of clicking is already shown in the dialog Emacs pop up.

> `?', like an `i' Information icon, should
> tell you something different, or something
> more, than the text you're already looking at.

And it does.  Of course, if you already clicked on the icon, you
already have seen the same information, but users can press RET right
away, e.g. if they don't have a mouse or don't use it.

> If you think about it for a few moments, I
> hope you'll see it's either misguided or
> it's missing something.
> 
> We get a "security fix" point release, and
> the first thing seen is an indecipherable,
> continually popped-up scary WARNING.  No
> help from Emacs to understand what's involved -
> what the danger/problem is, or what to do
> about it.
> 
> And your response is that this is all OK
> and expected?

No.  My response was quite more than that.

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Drew Adams via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors]

> > > You need to install GNU Binutils, which is where as.exe, the GNU
> > > assembler, comes from.
> >
> > Why?
> 
> It's needed for JIT native compilation of Lisp.

Until now, there has been no requirement
to have anything that's needed to support
native compilation.  Until now, Emacs just
ignored native compilation if the local
"infrastructure" to support it was missing.

That approach was good.

> > > > I haven't noticed other problems yet (with -Q), but
> > > > is the continual emission of that warning expected?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Why is that a good thing to do?
> 
> It isn't supposed to happen in a working Emacs installation.

I see.  You mean the warning itself, or
the need for a user to have whatever's
needed to support native compilation?

> Its absence is like the absence of dired.el/dired.elc: it should not
> happen.  So by default Emacs warns about it every time it wants to
> natively compile a file.

So is it only a problem with the Emacs build,
or is Emacs considering that the user's
context is inadequate and the user needs to
do something to remedy that?

> > > > Clicking that black, square icon pops up this
> > > > question as a menu:
> > > >
> > > >   Suppress `comp' warnings?
> > > >   _________________________
> > > >
> > > >   Yes, Ignore `Comp' Warnings Completely
> > > >   No, Just Disable Showing Them
> > > >   Quit And Do Nothing
> > > >
> > > > I have no idea what any of that means.
> > >
> > > It allows you to disable these warnings, so that they don't annoy you.
> >
> > Sure.  But _what are_ `Comp' warnings?
> 
> They are the warnings labeled 'comp', as in the warning you've shown.

So just as meaningless as if the label were 'foobar'
or 'guess-what-this-means'.

> > How is someone to know whether they might want to (or need to)
> > ignore, disable, or do nothing?
> 
> By reading the warnings, understanding what they say and mean, and
> deciding what to do with them.  It's a user decision.

So this is a user problem, not an Emacs build
problem?  (That's what user warnings are for.)

If so, that's the problem with the warning:
it's not comprehensible to many (most?) users.
The "user decision" can't be based on any real
understanding of what's involved (in this case).

> Isn't it you that always requests to let the
> users the freedom of deciding how to
> deal with non-trivial situations?

Not by not making clear to them what they can
or need to decide, giving them the info needed
to do that.

> That's what Emacs does there.

I don't see it that way.  I don't understand
the message, and it sounds like someone needs
to know something about Emacs builds, its
dependencies, and perhaps native compilation.

That's not my case, and I'd bet it's not the
case of many (most?) Emacs users.

> > Expecting someone to decide which to do makes
> > no sense if they have no idea what the meaning
> > or consequences are (beyond not seeing msgs).
> 
> We expect our users to understand the warnings and make the above
> decision, yes.

I don't think that expectation makes sense for
most users in this case.  It doesn't make sense
for this one who's used Emacs for 40 years.

> > Warnings should be for things that you need to
> > be WARNed about.  If this is one such thing,
> > then we should tell users what the "this" is.
> >
> >  *****
> >  WARNING - there's a FOOBAR in the vicinity!
> >  Quick!  What do you want to do about it?
> >  *****
> 
> That's an unfair comparison.  The warning in question did tell you
> what was the problem: a specific program was missing or could not be
> found.

What's the meaning/consequence of that program
being missing?  What's the importance of this
missing-something warning?  Does a user need
to remedy the lack of the program?  If so, how
to do that?

> > >   Warning (comp): SOMETHING
> > >
> > > and the prompt asks about suppressing "comp" warnings, which fits the
> > > warning ID.  You are showed 3 possible answers with the meaning of
> > > each one of them.  What is not clear here?
> >
> > Nothing is clear.  I'm a user.  I didn't build
> > Emacs.  I see this:
> >
> >  x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc-11.3.0: fatal error: cannot
> >  execute 'as': CreateProcess: No such file or directory
> >
> > Is that a problem?  I'm warned about it, so I
> > guess maybe it is.  Is it a problem that I'm
> > expected, and that I can, do something about?
> > If so, what needs to be done?
> 
> What needs to be done is find out why GCC could not fine 'as', and fix
> that.

The warning doesn't tell users that they need to
do that, and _how_ to do it.

> Alternatively, you can just shut up the warnings if you don't
> want to know about that.  See the text popped up by the GUI dialog or
> shown by '?' that explains how to deal with that warning.

I saw it, and spoke to that.

> > > > I also notice that if I put point on that icon and
> > > > hit RET I get the question in the minibuffer, but
> > > > with the additional key `?' highlighted (no such
> > > > option in the menu version).
> > > >
> > > > I hit `?' and this is shown in buffer *Multiple
> > > > Choice Help*:
> > > >
> > > > Suppress `comp' warnings?
> > > >
> > > > y: yes, ignore `comp'    n: no, just disable      q: quit and do
> > > > warnings completely      showing them             nothing
> > > >
> > > > That "help" text seems worse than useless.
> > >
> > > It just repeats what was in the menu.
> >
> > And you're just repeating what I reported.
> > Why have the `?' and `RET' binding, which
> > just repeats the text you're clicking `?'
> > for help about?
> 
> It adds some information about the possible responses, something that
> in the case of clicking is already shown in the dialog Emacs pop up.
> 
> > `?', like an `i' Information icon, should
> > tell you something different, or something
> > more, than the text you're already looking at.
> 
> And it does.  Of course, if you already clicked on the icon, you
> already have seen the same information, but users can press RET right
> away, e.g. if they don't have a mouse or don't use it.
> 
> > If you think about it for a few moments, I
> > hope you'll see it's either misguided or
> > it's missing something.
> >
> > We get a "security fix" point release, and
> > the first thing seen is an indecipherable,
> > continually popped-up scary WARNING.  No
> > help from Emacs to understand what's involved -
> > what the danger/problem is, or what to do
> > about it.
> >
> > And your response is that this is all OK
> > and expected?
> 
> No.  My response was quite more than that.

I'd say that the warning isn't very helpful
to many/most users who would encounter it -
unless it's never supposed to be seen and it
results from a faulty Emacs build and is not
really a user problem.

For most users to understand and act on the
problem, I think the info communicated would
need to be much better.

HTH.

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Drew Adams <drew.adams@oracle.com>
> CC: "corwin@bru.st" <corwin@bru.st>,
>         "tclwarrior@gmail.com"
> 	<tclwarrior@gmail.com>,
>         "71801@debbugs.gnu.org" <71801@debbugs.gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 15:33:49 +0000
> 
> > > > You need to install GNU Binutils, which is where as.exe, the GNU
> > > > assembler, comes from.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > 
> > It's needed for JIT native compilation of Lisp.
> 
> Until now, there has been no requirement
> to have anything that's needed to support
> native compilation.  Until now, Emacs just
> ignored native compilation if the local
> "infrastructure" to support it was missing.
> 
> That approach was good.

As Corwin explained already, he made a packaging mistake, whereby the
"infrastructure" in support of native compilation was half-present and
half-absent.

> > > > > I haven't noticed other problems yet (with -Q), but
> > > > > is the continual emission of that warning expected?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > >
> > > Why is that a good thing to do?
> > 
> > It isn't supposed to happen in a working Emacs installation.
> 
> I see.  You mean the warning itself, or
> the need for a user to have whatever's
> needed to support native compilation?

Neither.  What isn't supposed to happen is that you have GCC and
libgccjit, but not Binutils.  You should either have all of them, or
none, then the silent fallback on byte-compiled code will work.  What
happened in your case is that Emacs found libgccjit, so it decided the
native compilation was supported, but libgccjit choked when it
actually tried to compile Lisp to native code.

> > Its absence is like the absence of dired.el/dired.elc: it should not
> > happen.  So by default Emacs warns about it every time it wants to
> > natively compile a file.
> 
> So is it only a problem with the Emacs build,
> or is Emacs considering that the user's
> context is inadequate and the user needs to
> do something to remedy that?

It depends on the user.  If the user is the one who set up the
development and run-time environment, then the user should fix it to
be fully operable.  If the user just installed a binary distro, he/she
should take this up to whoever produced the distro.

> > > > > Clicking that black, square icon pops up this
> > > > > question as a menu:
> > > > >
> > > > >   Suppress `comp' warnings?
> > > > >   _________________________
> > > > >
> > > > >   Yes, Ignore `Comp' Warnings Completely
> > > > >   No, Just Disable Showing Them
> > > > >   Quit And Do Nothing
> > > > >
> > > > > I have no idea what any of that means.
> > > >
> > > > It allows you to disable these warnings, so that they don't annoy you.
> > >
> > > Sure.  But _what are_ `Comp' warnings?
> > 
> > They are the warnings labeled 'comp', as in the warning you've shown.
> 
> So just as meaningless as if the label were 'foobar'
> or 'guess-what-this-means'.

No, not just as meaningless.

> > > How is someone to know whether they might want to (or need to)
> > > ignore, disable, or do nothing?
> > 
> > By reading the warnings, understanding what they say and mean, and
> > deciding what to do with them.  It's a user decision.
> 
> So this is a user problem, not an Emacs build
> problem?  (That's what user warnings are for.)

It is a problem with the Emacs installation.  Who should fix it
depends on how and by whom Emacs was built and installed.  Emacs
itself cannot know that.

> If so, that's the problem with the warning:
> it's not comprehensible to many (most?) users.
> The "user decision" can't be based on any real
> understanding of what's involved (in this case).

Users who don't understand the warning will do what they always do:
search the Internet or ask on known forums.

> > Isn't it you that always requests to let the
> > users the freedom of deciding how to
> > deal with non-trivial situations?
> 
> Not by not making clear to them what they can
> or need to decide, giving them the info needed
> to do that.

Which we did here.

> > That's what Emacs does there.
> 
> I don't see it that way.  I don't understand
> the message, and it sounds like someone needs
> to know something about Emacs builds, its
> dependencies, and perhaps native compilation.

That's okay.  Some warnings will invariably left not understood by
some of the users, especially if they (users) lack background
knowledge about what happens in that case.  The usual remedy is to
ask.

> > That's an unfair comparison.  The warning in question did tell you
> > what was the problem: a specific program was missing or could not be
> > found.
> 
> What's the meaning/consequence of that program
> being missing?

If you know that Emacs compiles Lisp to native code, you will
understand the meaning of the assembler program being absent.  If you
don't, you won't, and will have to ask or look around for answers.

> > >  x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc-11.3.0: fatal error: cannot
> > >  execute 'as': CreateProcess: No such file or directory
> > >
> > > Is that a problem?  I'm warned about it, so I
> > > guess maybe it is.  Is it a problem that I'm
> > > expected, and that I can, do something about?
> > > If so, what needs to be done?
> > 
> > What needs to be done is find out why GCC could not fine 'as', and fix
> > that.
> 
> The warning doesn't tell users that they need to
> do that, and _how_ to do it.

It can't.  There are gazillion reasons for the problem, each one with
a different solution.  One can write a small paper mentioning and
explaining them all.  It's impractical to expect Emacs to do that in a
warning.  What Emacs does here is point out that a certain required
program is missing.  It should be good enough to understand the
problem, like it is good enough when Emacs says some file is missing.

Or take this message as an example:

  Autoloading failed to define function SUCH-AND-SUCH

Users who don't know what autoloading is or does will be unable to
understand it or know how to fix it.  Like in this case.

> > > And your response is that this is all OK
> > > and expected?
> > 
> > No.  My response was quite more than that.
> 
> I'd say that the warning isn't very helpful
> to many/most users who would encounter it -
> unless it's never supposed to be seen and it
> results from a faulty Emacs build and is not
> really a user problem.
> 
> For most users to understand and act on the
> problem, I think the info communicated would
> need to be much better.

You are entitled to your views, but I don't share them.  And I don't
agree with your estimation of how many users won't understand what the
warning says.

(I also don't understand why we are still arguing when Corwin already
explained why the problem happened, and already uploaded a fixed
distribution.)

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Drew Adams via Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors]

> If the user is the one who set up the
> development and run-time environment, then the user should fix it to
> be fully operable.  If the user just installed a binary distro, he/she
> should take this up to whoever produced the distro.
...
> It is a problem with the Emacs installation.  Who should fix it
> depends on how and by whom Emacs was built and installed.  Emacs
> itself cannot know that.
...
> Users who don't understand the warning will do what they always do:
> search the Internet or ask on known forums.
...
> > I don't understand the message, and it sounds
> > like someone needs to know something about
> > Emacs builds, its dependencies, and perhaps
> > native compilation.
> 
> That's okay.  Some warnings will invariably left not understood by
> some of the users, especially if they (users) lack background
> knowledge about what happens in that case.  The usual remedy is to
> ask.

Thank you for the more complete explanation.

Since there's no way for Emacs to know whether
the user seeing such a warning is one kind or
the other, consider including info such as this
in the warning (or linked from it, if it needs
to be a one-liner):

  There's a problem with this Emacs installation.
  If you installed a binary distro then please
  report it to whoever produced the distro.

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Corwin Brust]

On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 11:33 AM Drew Adams via Bug reports for GNU
Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors <bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
wrote:
>
> Since there's no way for Emacs to know whether
> the user seeing such a warning is one kind or
> the other, consider including info such as this
> in the warning (or linked from it, if it needs
> to be a one-liner):
>
>   There's a problem with this Emacs installation.
>   If you installed a binary distro then please
>   report it to whoever produced the distro.
>

I think that's an intriguing suggestion.  I wonder about challenging
the premise a little: maybe Emacs could be made to understand the
circumstances of compilation.  For example, an option to configure (or
make) could mung the value of some constant, expecting (e.g.) me to
pass a certain value when making Emacs binaries for Windows for
redistribution.  I wonder if this would be used often enough to create
more specific messages to be worth the bother, however.   In any
event, if you'd (anyone who would) like to discuss/request that (or
just continue discussing the opportunity to add staticly to the
messaging in this one case, please open a thread on devel (or new bug
report); I've closed this one.

bug#71801: emacs 29.4 windows binaries

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Corwin Brust <corwin@bru.st>
> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 11:49:04 -0500
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, "tclwarrior@gmail.com" <tclwarrior@gmail.com>, 71801-done@debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 11:33 AM Drew Adams via Bug reports for GNU
> Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors <bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > Since there's no way for Emacs to know whether
> > the user seeing such a warning is one kind or
> > the other, consider including info such as this
> > in the warning (or linked from it, if it needs
> > to be a one-liner):
> >
> >   There's a problem with this Emacs installation.
> >   If you installed a binary distro then please
> >   report it to whoever produced the distro.
> >
> 
> I think that's an intriguing suggestion.

The problem, of course, is that the above is only close to the reality
on MS-Windows, and only for users who don't already have a full-blown
development environment based on GCC capable of compiling programs,
independently of installing Emacs.  In all other cases, problems such
as this one will not be caused by the Emacs installation, and so
saying "there's a problem with this Emacs installation" will be
incorrect and misleading.