I don't understand why the discussion devolved to the merits of cargo. The original proposal for the builder package would be useful as a general feature to work with any build system. If I have a build system X I wrote myself which fulfills all the gnu ethical requirements, it would allow me to have a convenient generic way to interact with it through compile and the build systems cli. If that is the case I don't see the harm in having a general way to suggest completions for compile based on project basis.

With Regards

Yilkal Argaw

On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 12:07 PM Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> wrote:

Gregory Heytings <gregory@heytings.org> writes:

> No, that's not what we are discussing. Once again, "what is being
> discussed (and was objected to and characterized as a "horror") in
> this subthread is the fact that all versions of a library are
> available at compile time, to ensure that programs that depend on a
> given version of that library can still be built when later, possibly
> incompatible, versions of the library have been released."
>
> You now conveniently try to shift the focus on "the language".

Since different versions of various libraries require different versions
of the language, it is a very relevant subject.

> That's abstract theory (and it ignores the fact that even the
> "Standard C" language evolves: C23 will be released in a few months).

Standard C evolves, yet it takes pains to remain compatible with
previously written code. Very few programs require anything newer than
C99.

> In practice, Emacs 27, released less than three years ago, cannot be
> compiled anymore without a patch.

Except that it can be compiled with a single update to Gnulib, a
procedure that everyone knows how to perform.