Re: [Emacs-diffs] Changes to emacs/nt/INSTALL,v

["Juanma Barranquero" <lekktu@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 10:43 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

>  No, it isn't.  If you want to be correct, use "make bootstrap".

I do, daily :) But still I use cvs-update quite often.

>  cvs-update was introduced as a very useful shortcut, which takes half
>  a minute, if only a few Lisp files were modified

Hm. I would've said that the whole point of cvs-update is to be more
correct than recompile; else, why not simply use recompile, which is
faster?

> rather than one and
> a half hour taken by bootstrapping.

Just out of curiosity: in what kind of hardware? On a 3GHz Pentium 4,
it takes less than half an hour for me, from `make maintainer-clean'
to installation (though I cut some time by always doing an in-place
installation). That with MinGW's gcc; when I used Visual C it was even
faster.

>  One (minor) problem is that it regenerates subdirs.el unconditionally,
>  so whatever targets that depend on it will be remade as well.

Aha.

>  But these are all minor considerations, admittedly.

Yes. I'm more interested in the question of whether nt makefile's
recompile should call lisp makefile's cvs-update, or perhaps recompile
+ updates.

 Juanma