From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Next pretest, and branching plans Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:14:29 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4B8147A9.7030504@gmail.com> <87ljemdzxo.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4B83682D.5010804@gnu.org> <4B9B0211.9070308@gmail.com> <87pr37y6de.fsf@home.jasonrumney.net> <4B9C4EF6.3010006@gmail.com> <83mxya23fl.fsf@gnu.org> <4BA0225D.8030805@gmail.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1268799537 4040 80.91.229.12 (17 Mar 2010 04:18:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:18:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: jasonr@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Christoph Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 17 05:18:52 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1NrkiZ-0003Hv-Kj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:18:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44391 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NrkiY-0000lo-RZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:18:50 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nrki6-0000fy-20 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:18:22 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54997 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NrkeN-0008Mu-HK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:14:31 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NrkeM-0000FK-7p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:14:31 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:56422) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NrkeL-0000F9-Vw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:14:30 -0400 Original-Received: from eliz by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NrkeL-0002FS-Ok; Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:14:29 -0400 In-reply-to: <4BA0225D.8030805@gmail.com> (message from Christoph on Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:29:17 -0600) X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:122080 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:29:17 -0600 > From: Christoph > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, jasonr@gnu.org > > >> - added an option "--distfiles [path to file, for example libXpm.dll]" > >> to configure.bat. > >> > > That's gratuitous, I think: modern Windows shells are powerful enough > > to let you write a FOR loop looking for libXpm.dll along PATH. > > > This assumes that libXpm.dll is actually somwhere on the PATH, which it > might or might not be (and I might not put it on the path). If it's not on PATH, it's in the directory where you have the Emacs binary. > I think the > command line option for configure.bat is way more flexible for one's > individual build environment Yes, but flexibility comes at a price: one needs _always_ to type that argument. Why impose this inconvenience on the user? > >> Also, is there any way to get the version number from a file contained > >> in the source tar ball? Then make dist would always output a zip file > >> properly named according to the current version. > >> > > Again, one of the variants of the FOR command should do the trick. > > > Could you elaborate on this solution? Thanks! Type "for /?" from the cmd prompt, and read there, especially about "for /f". It's too long to post that info here. > PS: As for the "powerful Windows shells"...not before Windows 7 (or > Vista?) with Powershell did Windows ever have a powerful shell... ;) I was talking about cmd, not about Powershell.