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: [Emacs-diffs] Changes to emacs/nt/INSTALL,v Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:22:48 +0300 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1207909589 25564 80.91.229.12 (11 Apr 2008 10:26:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:26:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org, jasonr@gnu.org To: Juanma Barranquero Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Apr 11 12:27:01 2008 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 4.50) id 1JkGQ8-0001Kr-KK for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:23:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JkGPU-0001Yn-Ec for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:23:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JkGPK-0001Xn-GW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:22:59 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JkGPI-0001Vo-2Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:22:57 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JkGPH-0001VN-Rn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:22:55 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il ([84.95.2.4]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JkGPC-0001fK-U7; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:22:51 -0400 Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([80.230.158.193]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0JZ500GJQPHCFG31@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:36:49 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9.1 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:94957 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:13:05 +0200 > From: "Juanma Barranquero" > Cc: jasonr@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > 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? Because without the other prerequisites of cvs-update, especially autoloads, you will have a buggy Emacs. > > 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. 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. > I'm more interested in the question of whether nt makefile's > recompile should call lisp makefile's cvs-update, or perhaps recompile > + updates. I never do a "make recompile" from the nt subdirectory.