Re: Question on https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/commit/?id=d0b1e3647fb4e6d889f9f999388c53daf0e67f0d

[Alan Third <alan@idiocy.org>]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 07:06:20PM +0200, Gerd Möllmann wrote:
> On 23-09-21 18:50 , Alan Third wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 10:46:56AM +0200, Gerd Möllmann wrote:
> > > On 23-09-21 8:29 , Pedro Andres Aranda Gutierrez wrote:
> > > > > I'm confused...
> > > 
> > > I assume that is nextstep/Makefile.in.  We want to cp the .pdmp file only if
> > > we don't do a self-contained build (...=no).
> > 
> > Now I'm confused!
> 
> I suspect you're all trying to confuse me :-).
> 
> > We only have to install the pdmp file in the app bundle when doing a
> > self-contained build.
> > 
> > If your other change in Makefile.in already does that, then this cp
> > isn't needed at all.
> > 
> My aim was to not change anything in the case the build is not
> self-contained, because I can't test that.
> 
> In nextstep/Makefile.in, the cp
> - is not done in the self-contained case
> - is done for the non-self-contained case
> (This cp was formerly done for a naked make at toplevel, not only for a make
> install.  That was the problem resulting in an inconistent Emacs.app.)
> 
> In the toplevel Makefile.in
> - the install is done in the self-contained case, as a substitute for the
> now missing cp in nextstep/Makefile.in
> - nothing is changed for the non-self-contained case
> (This happens when we make install.)

OK. As the author of that line of code and the FIXME I would recommend
removing the cp in nextstep/Makefile.in for the non-self-contained
case as well, but I don't think I can prove that it's not going to
break anything as I can't really test it either! :)

I guess I can just remove it myself...
-- 
Alan Third