Re: Org Build System (aka Makefile)

[Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de>]

Eric Schulte writes:
> But we certainly shouldn't (and currently aren't?) inhibit the display
> of any warnings when the default make is run.  I was surprised to run
> make compile-source and see additional warnings which weren't shown
> during regular make.

These warnings aren't reliable — the byte compiler doesn't really try to
find and report problems.

> What is the difference between "make" and "make
> compile-source" which results in different warnings?

make -n compile
make -n _COMPILE_=single compile

The difference is starting a single Emacs and then compiling all files
vs. starting a fresh Emacs instance for each file to be compiled.  The
change was originally triggered by some differences to the builds in
package manager (ELPA) and solidified due to the fact that this is the
only method that does function with only Emacs available.  Should have
been discussed around November last year, IIRC.

> After some time digging through the make files, it looks to me like one
> must edit the local.mk file to run these.

You are welcome to dig through whatever files, but maybe you might
consult the documentation first?  As you would read there and can see
above, you can do it all on the command line if you wish.  If you want
to enact that change permanently, you should edit local.mk — that's the
only reason it exists.

> I'd propose that they are added as a separate Makefile target
> (mentioned by "make help") so that they can be easily run.

If you want additional make targets you can also implement those in
local.mk; run `make helpall´ some time and ask yourself if you really
need more.

> Very few people (users or developers) are willing to edit make
> configuration files.

Those same people that have no problem to edit the sources?  Come on,
you can't be serious.

> Perhaps these elint build options should be used to build when "make
> check" is run.  If a user is willing to run the test suite they should
> be willing to endure a slower build for more thorough warnings.

If they want to, they can edit local.mk.  But since it is not necessary
for the build and there won't be any warnings to see if the developers
do a good job, it's not a useful default.  It is maybe useful as an
additional configuration for release tests (just as it is useful to have
multiple configurations to be able to test different versions of Emacs).


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

SD adaptations for Waldorf Q V3.00R3 and Q+ V3.54R2:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada