Re: Building emacs with and without X -- packaging question.

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Juanma Barranquero wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:42:05 +0300 (IDT), Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> 
> wrote:
> 
> > What maintenance burden did you have in mind?  All we need is make sure 
> > make-docfile is invoked with the same list of files on all platforms.
> 
> Hmm, I'm not sure, but I've seen that DOC data is extracted sometimes
> from .el files and others from .elc, and from .c files in Windows, but .o
> files in GNU/Linux...

These are technicalities.  You will see that make-docfile always reads 
the *.c files, on all platforms, even if you submit *.o files to it.  I'm 
not quite sure why the Windows Makefile's use *.c files directly, but I'm 
guessing that it's something trivial, like the fact that there are no *.o 
files on Windows.

> OTOH, there are .elc and .o/.obj files which conceptually cannot be
> built on Windows, because they require support programs or libraries not
> present, etc.

The distribution always comes with all *.c files and with all *.elc files 
already compiled.  So there should be no problem to build a 
system-independent DOC file.  All we need is decide on the contents of 
the various lists of files used by src/Makefile.in to build DOC.

> Also, I think in Unix/Linux environments the list of files can be
> perhaps automatically maintained, but Windows shells are pathetic and
> the list is manually constructed.

That problem already exists.  The issue we are discussing doesn't add any 
significant addition to it.

> > The interesting question is why are doc strings from ucs-tables seen on 
> > Unix and GNU/Linux systems, but not on Windows?
> 
> I don't understand. Are you asking why the doc strings are not seen on
> Windows, or why lisp/international/ucs-tables is not used to generate
> DOC on Windows?

The latter.