Some error info from configure.bat please

Some error info from configure.bat please

[Lennart Borgman]

Could configure.bat provide some info when something goes wrong? It is 
enough to set an environment variable (configureerr?) to 1 for example.

This would make it much easier to do supply working command files for 
automatic building of Emacs under w32.

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:32:11 +0200
> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
> 
> Could configure.bat provide some info when something goes wrong? It is 
> enough to set an environment variable (configureerr?) to 1 for example.

What would you like to do with that indication?  (We already have
config.log with the log of failures during configure.)

> This would make it much easier to do supply working command files for 
> automatic building of Emacs under w32.

What ``working command files'' are we talking about?

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Lennart Borgman]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>>Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:32:11 +0200
>>From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
>>
>>Could configure.bat provide some info when something goes wrong? It is 
>>enough to set an environment variable (configureerr?) to 1 for example.
>>    
>>
>
>What would you like to do with that indication?  (We already have
>config.log with the log of failures during configure.)
>  
>
I would like to use this in a cmd file to see if the build should 
continue after config.bat.

My config.log looks like this:

    gcc -c junk.c
    junk.c:1:29: cygwin/version.h: No such file or directory
    The failed program was:
    #include "cygwin/version.h"
    main(){}
    gcc -Id:/g/include -c junk.c
    gcc -c -O2 -mtune=pentium4 junk.c
    cc1.exe: invalid option `tune=pentium4'
    The failed program was:
    main(){}
    gcc -Id:/g/include  -c junk.c -o junk.obj
    gcc -Id:/g/include  -c junk.c -o junk.obj
    gcc -Id:/g/include  -c junk.c -o junk.obj
    gcc -Id:/g/include  -c junk.c -o junk.obj
    gcc -Id:/g/include  -c junk.c -o junk.obj

Does it give me any information I can check from the cmd file?

>  
>
>>This would make it much easier to do supply working command files for 
>>automatic building of Emacs under w32.
>>    
>>
>
>What ``working command files'' are we talking about?
>
My own. I use to upload copies of them to the net.

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:32:12 +0200
> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> I would like to use this in a cmd file to see if the build should 
> continue after config.bat.
> 
> My config.log looks like this:
> 
>     gcc -c junk.c
>     junk.c:1:29: cygwin/version.h: No such file or directory
>     The failed program was:
>     #include "cygwin/version.h"
>     main(){}
>     gcc -Id:/g/include -c junk.c
>     gcc -c -O2 -mtune=pentium4 junk.c
>     cc1.exe: invalid option `tune=pentium4'
>     The failed program was:
>     main(){}
>     gcc -Id:/g/include  -c junk.c -o junk.obj
>     gcc -Id:/g/include  -c junk.c -o junk.obj
>     gcc -Id:/g/include  -c junk.c -o junk.obj
>     gcc -Id:/g/include  -c junk.c -o junk.obj
>     gcc -Id:/g/include  -c junk.c -o junk.obj
> 
> Does it give me any information I can check from the cmd file?

It does say, e.g., that you use a somewhat old version of GCC which
does not support the -mtune=pentium4 option.

If that output is not enough, we could add some more text to what is
written to config.log, and you could then look for it with findstr or
some such.  For example, if all you care for is whether configure.bat
succeeded, we could have configure.bat echo something like "configure
FAILED" to the end of config.log.

> >What ``working command files'' are we talking about?
> >
> My own. I use to upload copies of them to the net.

So I guess we are not talking about command files you want to add to
the Emacs sources, yes?

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Lennart Borgman]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>It does say, e.g., that you use a somewhat old version of GCC which
>does not support the -mtune=pentium4 option.
>  
>
Oh, I have to look again. I thought I was using the latest MinGW released.

>If that output is not enough, we could add some more text to what is
>written to config.log, and you could then look for it with findstr or
>some such.  For example, if all you care for is whether configure.bat
>succeeded, we could have configure.bat echo something like "configure
>FAILED" to the end of config.log.
>  
>
Would be fine.

>So I guess we are not talking about command files you want to add to
>the Emacs sources, yes?
>  
>
Of course I will offer them, when I found they are stable and have made 
a sane decision for their look. But I still feel they are work in 
progress and lack solid quality. There is no good error checking yet 
because I have not understood how make reports errors yet. How should I 
check for errors from different make commands like "make install", "make 
bootstrap" etc?

BTW, is "make info" necessary any more after "make" or "make bootstrap"?

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/2/05, Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> wrote:

> BTW, is "make info" necessary any more after "make" or "make bootstrap"?

Yes. I routinely do

  make bootstrap
  make install
  make info

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:01:18 +0200
> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
> CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> >If that output is not enough, we could add some more text to what is
> >written to config.log, and you could then look for it with findstr or
> >some such.  For example, if all you care for is whether configure.bat
> >succeeded, we could have configure.bat echo something like "configure
> >FAILED" to the end of config.log.
> >  
> Would be fine.

Okay, I will add that soon.

> BTW, is "make info" necessary any more after "make" or "make bootstrap"?

It still is.  That's a nuisance, IMHO, and removing the need for a
separate command is on my list of things to do.

Jason, do you know of any reason why "make info" is not run
automatically by "make" on Windows?

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Jason Rumney]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> BTW, is "make info" necessary any more after "make" or "make bootstrap"?
>
> It still is.  That's a nuisance, IMHO, and removing the need for a
> separate command is on my list of things to do.
>
> Jason, do you know of any reason why "make info" is not run
> automatically by "make" on Windows?

Because I have never been able to find a version of make that works on
Windows short of building it myself, which requires a whole host of
other Unix ports to build. Most binary versions floating around the
net are several versions behind, and we keep using the latest info
features in Emacs, so the latest makeinfo is essential.

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/2/05, Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org> wrote:

> Because I have never been able to find a version of make that works on
> Windows short of building it myself

Did you mean "makeinfo"?

> Most binary versions floating around the
> net are several versions behind, and we keep using the latest info
> features in Emacs, so the latest makeinfo is essential.

It *is* possible to build info on Windows without having to build
makeinfo yourself; it's tricky, though, and you've got to have the
right combination of info, makeinfo, install-info and make.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Jason Rumney]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> Did you mean "makeinfo"?

Yes.

>> Most binary versions floating around the
>> net are several versions behind, and we keep using the latest info
>> features in Emacs, so the latest makeinfo is essential.
>
> It *is* possible to build info on Windows without having to build
> makeinfo yourself; it's tricky, though, and you've got to have the
> right combination of info, makeinfo, install-info and make.

Right. And that is why I have not inflicted automatic building of info
files on Windows users in the past. It only affects those using CVS
anyway (which could be an argument either way I suppose).

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Lennart Borgman]

Jason Rumney wrote:

>Right. And that is why I have not inflicted automatic building of info
>files on Windows users in the past. It only affects those using CVS
>anyway (which could be an argument either way I suppose).
>
It seems to me that the emergence of the GnuWin32 project has helped 
quite a bit.

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Jason Rumney]

Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> writes:

> Jason Rumney wrote:
>
> It seems to me that the emergence of the GnuWin32 project has helped
> quite a bit.

It is some time since I looked, so it might be worth trying to find a
version that works that we can recommend to those who do not want to
go through the effort of building makeinfo themselves.

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Jason Rumney <jasonr@gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 23:20:27 +0100
> Cc: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>,
> 	emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> writes:
> 
> > Jason Rumney wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me that the emergence of the GnuWin32 project has helped
> > quite a bit.
> 
> It is some time since I looked, so it might be worth trying to find a
> version that works that we can recommend to those who do not want to
> go through the effort of building makeinfo themselves.

I find the ports of the last two versions from GnuWin32 to be
generally okay.  The stand-alone Info reader is broken, since it uses
termcap, and the Windows shell window doesn't support any
termcap-style commands.  But other than that, all the other binaries
work quite well.

So I think we should indeed add such a recommendation to INSTALL.

But it would be nice not to need Texinfo if one is building the
release tarball.  I'll try to think of a way not to invoke makeinfo
unless really required.

Btw, there's one other related issue: why do we need to invoke
install-info when we install the built binaries?  THe file info/dir
that comes with the distribution (and is part of CVS) already has all
the entries in it, right?  If we could eliminate the need for running
install-info, it would be easier to avoid asking ``normal'' users to
have Texinfo installed.

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Lennart Borgman]

Juanma Barranquero wrote:

>It *is* possible to build info on Windows without having to build
>makeinfo yourself; it's tricky, though, and you've got to have the
>right combination of info, makeinfo, install-info and make.
>
I would be glad if you explained a bit more. I wrote some instructions 
for building on w32 and I surely noted you needed a special combination 
of programs sometimes, like make and makeinfo. I was trying to get 
things working with MSYS then. I even wrote a perl script to check 
things. (It does not try to know all working combinations, it just warns 
if it can't recognize the combination used. For more info se EmacsW32, 
start at http://www.emacswiki.org/ or go to 
http://ourcomments.org/Emacs/EmacsW32.html.)

I never noticed any programs named "info" or "install-info" was needed 
when doing this. What are you referring to?

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/2/05, Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> wrote:
> Juanma Barranquero wrote:

> I would be glad if you explained a bit more. I wrote some instructions
> for building on w32 and I surely noted you needed a special combination
> of programs sometimes, like make and makeinfo. I was trying to get
> things working with MSYS then. I even wrote a perl script to check
> things. (It does not try to know all working combinations, it just warns
> if it can't recognize the combination used. For more info se EmacsW32,
> start at http://www.emacswiki.org/ or go to
> http://ourcomments.org/Emacs/EmacsW32.html.)

The problem is, I don't think that checking tools is a good strategy,
on the long term. Different versions sometimes work or cease to work.
I was able to build the Emacs info files with Cygwin for a while, and
after some update or other the thing failed. Me, I've assembled a .ZIP
with the tools needed (except MinGW, which I install separately), and
I unzip it wherever I want to compile Emacs. They are completely
separated of other installations of Unix tools that I may have on my
computer, and for sure I don't intend to change anything inside it
unless a future Emacs requires an upgrade (as Jason said, that
sometimes happens with make-info).

I don't even use the same tools for building Emacs and to build the
info (there's a make incompatibility or something, I don't remember
right now), so I have one .BAT to set the path for compilation, and
compile (or bootstrap), and another .BAT to set the path for building
info, etc. My current building environment for Emacs uses a mixture of
MinGW, UnxUtils *and* GnuWin32 tools... (I don't use MSYS, though).

> I never noticed any programs named "info" or "install-info" was needed
> when doing this. What are you referring to?

Sorry, info is not needed, I think. install-info is. Look at
nt/multi-install-info.bat.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Lennart Borgman]

Juanma Barranquero wrote:

>The problem is, I don't think that checking tools is a good strategy,
>on the long term. Different versions sometimes work or cease to work.
>I was able to build the Emacs info files with Cygwin for a while, and
>after some update or other the thing failed. Me, I've assembled a .ZIP
>with the tools needed (except MinGW, which I install separately), and
>I unzip it wherever I want to compile Emacs. They are completely
>separated of other installations of Unix tools that I may have on my
>computer, and for sure I don't intend to change anything inside it
>unless a future Emacs requires an upgrade (as Jason said, that
>sometimes happens with make-info).
>  
>
Maybe different strategies are needed for different times. I have 
noticed the careful notes in INSTALL about certain parts of the tools. 
Perhaps that could be extended a bit. I see three different current tool 
packages on w32: GnuWin32, CygWin and MSYS+MinGW. I am not sure about 
UnxUtilites, are they maintained? Staying with one of those for a 
particular purposes may be the best.

In my case I have decided to go with GnuWin32+MinGW when building Emacs. 
For run time program I am thinking about using MSYS instead since 
sometimes sh is needed. (However I have not been able to build with 
MSYS.) I've learned the hard way you should not mix the tools so if I am 
using MSYS I make sure I put that first in the path (for example by 
using (add-to-list <msys-path> 'exec-path) in Emacs). Currently I have 
MSYS installed, but it is not on my path (except for sometimes inside 
Emacs).

>>I never noticed any programs named "info" or "install-info" was needed
>>when doing this. What are you referring to?
>>    
>>
>
>Sorry, info is not needed, I think. install-info is. Look at
>nt/multi-install-info.bat.
>
Eh, sorry too. I have it, the installation packages from GnuWin32 works 
rathers seemlessly ;-)

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[David Kastrup]

Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> writes:

> Juanma Barranquero wrote:
>
>>The problem is, I don't think that checking tools is a good strategy,
>>on the long term. Different versions sometimes work or cease to work.
>>I was able to build the Emacs info files with Cygwin for a while, and
>>after some update or other the thing failed. Me, I've assembled a .ZIP
>>with the tools needed (except MinGW, which I install separately), and
>>I unzip it wherever I want to compile Emacs. They are completely
>>separated of other installations of Unix tools that I may have on my
>>computer, and for sure I don't intend to change anything inside it
>>unless a future Emacs requires an upgrade (as Jason said, that
>>sometimes happens with make-info).
>>  
>>
> Maybe different strategies are needed for different times. I have
> noticed the careful notes in INSTALL about certain parts of the
> tools. Perhaps that could be extended a bit. I see three different
> current tool packages on w32: GnuWin32, CygWin and MSYS+MinGW.

>From the vole itself: SFU
<URL:http:http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/sfu/>.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Juanma Barranquero]

> From the vole itself: SFU
> <URL:http:http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/sfu/>.

I assume that is a derivation of the Interix stuff they bough a few years ago?

On the non-free front, for those so inclined, there's MKS:
http://www.mkssoftware.com/

BTW, where did originate the Vole = Microsoft meme? Perhaps related to
genus Microtus...?

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[David Kastrup]

Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

>> From the vole itself: SFU
>> <URL:http:http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/sfu/>.
>
> I assume that is a derivation of the Interix stuff they bough a few
> years ago?

Yes.  And it is, well, free as in "you don't need to pay for it,
`just' register with us".  It actually is supposed to contain gcc,
g++, gdb and some other GPLed software.  Which is sort of amusing,
giving all the licensing FUD from Microsoft.

> On the non-free front, for those so inclined, there's MKS:
> http://www.mkssoftware.com/
>
> BTW, where did originate the Vole = Microsoft meme? Perhaps related
> to genus Microtus...?

Maybe
<URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Microsoft_vole>
helps somewhat.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/3/05, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
> Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:

> Yes.  And it is, well, free as in "you don't need to pay for it,
> `just' register with us".  It actually is supposed to contain gcc,
> g++, gdb and some other GPLed software.

Well, I'd like to take a look, but I assume it must be one of those
"total inversion" environments where you're supposed to use ksh, etc.
I cannot stomach that.

> Maybe
> <URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Microsoft_vole>
> helps somewhat.

Aha. I knew the term was used in The Inquirer, but the discussion you
point out is interesting. Thanks.

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/3/05, Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se> wrote:

> Maybe different strategies are needed for different times.

Perhaps. But when I started compiling my own Emacs I would've been
glad to have a list: "get texinfo from http://here, and make.xe from
http://there, oh, and rm and other common tools from
http://over/there." Adding to the problem is that, if the user
overlooks the "cvs update -kb" bit of information, he's gonna think
his make.exe doesn't work and he's gonna start losing hair really
fast... (Been there, done that, lost the patience.)

> Perhaps that could be extended a bit. I see three different current tool
> packages on w32: GnuWin32, CygWin and MSYS+MinGW.

Yes, although Cygwin is more for those that want a total Unix
immersion environment in Windows; I wouldn't recommend it for a user
that just wants to compile Emacs (building in Cygwin is more like
building on GNU/Linux than in Windows).

> I am not sure about
> UnxUtilites, are they maintained?

I think there's only one developer and the last update is from 2003;
still, the simple tools (like rm, cp) work for me much better than the
ones in MSYS, for example (I had weird network issues with these).

> Staying with one of those for a
> particular purposes may be the best.
> 
> In my case I have decided to go with GnuWin32+MinGW when building Emacs.

That is two ;-)

> Currently I have
> MSYS installed, but it is not on my path (except for sometimes inside
> Emacs).

I do the opposite: I have MSYS and MinGW on my path, but I take them
out for building and running Emacs (but I never use shell buffers
inside Emacs).

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 02:54:26 +0200
> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Maybe different strategies are needed for different times. I have 
> noticed the careful notes in INSTALL about certain parts of the tools. 
> Perhaps that could be extended a bit. I see three different current tool 
> packages on w32: GnuWin32, CygWin and MSYS+MinGW.

The last one is not a replacement for the other two: it's just a
``solution'' to have a port of Bash and a minimal set of related
tools; AFAIK, Make and makeinfo are not part of that set.  GnuWin32
and Cygwin are much larger sets of tools.  In addition, GnuWin32
doesn't include GCC and Binutils, and MinGW has _only_ those.

So I think the right combinations are: GnuWin32+MinGW and Cygwin.  The
former can be augmented by some port of a Unix shell (I use zsh,
FWIW), while the latter comes with a shell.

> I am not sure about UnxUtilites, are they maintained?

No.

> For run time program I am thinking about using MSYS instead since 
> sometimes sh is needed.

The port of sh included in MSYS is the Cygwin port.  So I won't
recommend its use with a non-Cygwin build of Emacs.

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Lennart Borgman]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>The port of sh included in MSYS is the Cygwin port.  So I won't
>recommend its use with a non-Cygwin build of Emacs.
>  
>
What problems are there using MSYS from within Emacs?

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:29:18 +0200
> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
> CC: lekktu@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> >The port of sh included in MSYS is the Cygwin port.  So I won't
> >recommend its use with a non-Cygwin build of Emacs.
> >  
> What problems are there using MSYS from within Emacs?

The same ones as when you use the Cygwin tools: the cygdrive nuisance,
the text vs binary files issue, etc.  MSYS is just a subset of Cygwin,
AFAIK, so it doesn't solve all these problems.

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Lennart Borgman]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>So I think the right combinations are: GnuWin32+MinGW and Cygwin.  The
>former can be augmented by some port of a Unix shell (I use zsh,
>FWIW), while the latter comes with a shell.
>  
>
Is zsh good for unpacking distributions? I beleive that for example 
CEDET needs a sh to unpack (but I may be wrong).

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 09:50:55 +0200
> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
> CC: lekktu@gmail.com,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> Is zsh good for unpacking distributions?

zsh is a very good shell (the "**" feature alone is something to kill
for), and it has a sh compatibility mode, so is suitable for every job
we need a Unix shell for.

Unfortunately, the Windows port is unmaintained, and I found a few
bugs in it, one of them blatant and nasty (it didn't know that sh.exe
and sh point to the same program, so it didn't invoke sh compatibility
mode in some cases).  I fixed the blatant bug (long live Free
Software!), but found a few more while testing the patched version,
and then I ran out of free time.  The patched binary works fine for me
in simple situations, like building Emacs, and works well with
GnuWin32 ports of other utilities; the problems I still need to debug
only raise their ugly heads in very complex scripts, like `configure'
and `libtool'.  I hope to work on the rest of the bugs when I have
free time, and then I might upload the result somewhere, because a
native Windows port of a Unixy shell is IMHO sorely needed.

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/3/05, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

>  (the "**" feature alone is something to kill for)

Could you please describe it briefly?

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 18:27:05 +0200
> From: Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> On 7/3/05, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> 
> >  (the "**" feature alone is something to kill for)
> 
> Could you please describe it briefly?

"fgrep STRING /foo/bar/**/*.c" will look for the named string in all
*.c files in /foo/bar and in all its subdirectories, recursively (and
is much faster than "fgrep -R STRING /foo/bar/**/* --include='*.c'"
you will need without the ** feature).

Likewise, "ls -ltrd d:/**/*.log" will produce a listing of all the
*.log files on drive D:, in the order they were created/modified.

Convinced?

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Juanma Barranquero]

On 7/3/05, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:

> Convinced?

It sounds useful, yeah.

OTOH, the shell I use for Windows (4NT) would do that with -R (/S, in
fact) in most internal commands, and you can always do "GLOBAL
yourcommand yourarguments" to run an external programs in every
subdirectory of a directory tree (which is not exactly the same, but
often suffices). It is very fast and I've never had any complains
about recursing subdirectories. 4NT has also aliases, user defined
functions, and other quite useful things, like "SELECT program
(files)" to manually select files to pass to program, for example:

  SELECT COPY (.) c:\tmp\backup

would allow me to manually select (in a nice character-based selection
screen) which files I want to pass to COPY.

Different tastes, I suppose. I tend to consider Unix shells ugly.
OTOH, and although 4NT is a much nicer programming environment than
CMD, when I really want to do some scripting I most often use Perl,
not a shell. (Let's see what happens with Monad, the Microsoft
Scripting Shell.)

-- 
                    /L/e/k/t/u

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Stefan Monnier]

[ As a long time zsh user, I'm biased of course. ]

>> >  (the "**" feature alone is something to kill for)

Agreed.  Eshell has it also, BTW.

>> Could you please describe it briefly?

> "fgrep STRING /foo/bar/**/*.c" will look for the named string in all
> *.c files in /foo/bar and in all its subdirectories, recursively (and
> is much faster than "fgrep -R STRING /foo/bar/**/* --include='*.c'"
> you will need without the ** feature).

It's not just speed.  In many cases you can use find|xargs to get a similar
result, but there are cases where he ** thingy is difficult to emulate with
other tools.  One example I've used releatedly is

      for f in **/CVS/Root; do ... done

if you havedirectories named "CVS" that don't have a "Root" fine in them,
the above code is difficult to simulate with find.


        Stefan

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Andreas Schwab]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> It's not just speed.  In many cases you can use find|xargs to get a similar
> result, but there are cases where he ** thingy is difficult to emulate with
> other tools.  One example I've used releatedly is
>
>       for f in **/CVS/Root; do ... done
>
> if you havedirectories named "CVS" that don't have a "Root" fine in them,
> the above code is difficult to simulate with find.

Unless you have GNU find.

$ find -path "*/CVS/Root" | ...

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Stefan Monnier]

>> It's not just speed.  In many cases you can use find|xargs to get a similar
>> result, but there are cases where he ** thingy is difficult to emulate with
>> other tools.  One example I've used releatedly is
>> 
>> for f in **/CVS/Root; do ... done
>> 
>> if you havedirectories named "CVS" that don't have a "Root" fine in them,
>> the above code is difficult to simulate with find.

> Unless you have GNU find.

> $ find -path "*/CVS/Root" | ...

Damn!  Now everybody knows that I haven't updated my knowledge of `find'
during the last 10 years!


        Stefan

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Lennart Borgman]

Stefan Monnier wrote:

>Damn!  Now everybody knows that I haven't updated my knowledge of `find'
>during the last 10 years!
>
Yes ... now, atcually it was a good prediction ;-)

Re: Some error info from configure.bat please

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 19:36:52 +0200
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> > Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 18:01:18 +0200
> > From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman.073@student.lu.se>
> > CC: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> > 
> > >If that output is not enough, we could add some more text to what is
> > >written to config.log, and you could then look for it with findstr or
> > >some such.  For example, if all you care for is whether configure.bat
> > >succeeded, we could have configure.bat echo something like "configure
> > >FAILED" to the end of config.log.
> > >  
> > Would be fine.
> 
> Okay, I will add that soon.

It turned out it was easier to add a line that indicates a successful
configure step, so I did that.