[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why `lisp' and `shortlisp'
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Why `lisp' and `shortlisp' |
Date: |
Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:39:55 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux) |
>> Can someone explain to me why we have both `lisp' and `shortlisp' in
>> src/Makefile.in? It appears to contain the same list of files, so
>> I can't understand how it would make sense to sometimes refer to them
>> via ../lisp and sometimes via ${lispsource}.
> I wondered about this too. Perhaps:
> $lisp specifies the full path for those who build in a different directory.
> $shortlisp is needed for the comment above the rule for DOC:
> /* We run make-docfile twice because the command line may get too long
> on some systems. */
> Perhaps $shortlisp is (more likely, was) needed to avoid overflowing
> the command-line limit on "some" systems. Generating it from $lisp via
> eg sed would have the same problem.
But if `shortlisp' works, why use `lisp'?
Stefan