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

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

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:22 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

>  > 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?
>
>  Because without the other prerequisites of cvs-update, especially
>  autoloads, you will have a buggy Emacs.

I thought that was implied in "to be more correct than recompile" ;-)

>  It's the same hardware, so maybe half an hour is so long for me that I
>  took it for three times that ;-)  I don't really remember how long it
>  was exactly, but it seemed forever.

Oh, I usually do (in a .BAT)

   cvs update
   cd nt
   make maintainer-clean  ; realclean before
   configure
   make bootstrap install

as the first thing in the morning, and I let it happily compile. Time
is not much of an issue, I use 22.X meanwhile.

>  I never do a "make recompile" from the nt subdirectory.

I don't, either (I use cvs-update from lisp/), but as of yesterday,
nt/INSTALL includes this:

  make recompile
  Recompiles any changed lisp files after a cvs update.  This saves
  doing a full bootstrap after every update.  If this or a subsequent
  make fail, you probably need to perform a full bootstrap, though
  running this target multiple times may eventually sort out the
  interdependencies.

so it would be perhaps preferable for recompile (from nt/) to do a bit
more work and be more correct.

Just a nitpick, though.

   Juanma