[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury |
Date: |
Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:00:11 +0300 |
> Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:33:18 -0700
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> CC: address@hidden
>
> Thanks for getting this to work.
Thanks for reviewing the changes.
> > - cd $(DESTDIR)${bindir} && $(LN_S) $(EMACSFULL) $(EMACS); \
> > + cd $(DESTDIR)${bindir} && $(LN_EMACS) $(EMACSFULL) $(EMACS); \
>
> Why prefer hard links on Windows but not everywhere else?
I don't know why we moved to symlinks here. Perhaps Glenn could
comment on that.
> How about something like the following instead?
>
> cd $(DESTDIR)${bindir} && { \
> ln $(EMACSFULL) $(EMACS) 2>/dev/null || $(LN_S) $(EMACSFULL) $(EMACS); \
> }; \
>
> That way, we don't need LN_EMACS.
Right, fine with me. But see also my other mail on this issue.
> > +if test "${opsys}" = "mingw32"; then
> > + if test "${with_xpm}" != "no"; then
> > + AC_CHECK_HEADER(X11/xpm.h, HAVE_XPM=yes, HAVE_XPM=no, [
> > +#define FOR_MSW 1])
> > + fi
> > +
> > + if test "${HAVE_XPM}" = "yes"; then
> > + AC_DEFINE(HAVE_XPM, 1, [Define to 1 if you have the Xpm library
> > (-lXpm).])
> > + fi
> > +fi
>
> There are a number of instances of code like this, where a reasonably
> large amount of code is duplicated and surrounded by "if test
> "${opsys}" = "mingw32". It'd be better to duplicate less code and do
> the mingw32-specific stuff more compactly. Perhaps this is too much
> to do right now, but at least this deserves a FIXME, as in the long
> run this is increasing maintenance effort.
Right. For the record, the reason why I didn't bring these instances
together is that they test for optional libraries one by one, and I
thought keeping the tests related to each library together was more
important than avoiding some code duplication.
> > +if test "${opsys}" = "mingw32"; then
> > + AC_DEFINE(NULL_DEVICE, ["NUL:"], [Name of the file to open to get
> > + a null file, or a data sink.])
> > +else
> > + AC_DEFINE(NULL_DEVICE, ["/dev/null"], [Name of the file to open to get
> > + a null file, or a data sink.])
> > +fi
>
> For stuff like this, how about putting it into conf_post.h instead?
Fine with me. However, Glenn suggested another solution, one that
involves other similar macros (like SEPCHAR). Which way to use?
Thanks for the other suggestions, I will implement them all.
- Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, (continued)
- Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/04/17
- Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, Glenn Morris, 2013/04/17
- Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/04/17
- Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, Glenn Morris, 2013/04/17
- Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, Glenn Morris, 2013/04/17
- Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/04/17
Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, Glenn Morris, 2013/04/16
Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, Paul Eggert, 2013/04/16
- Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, Paul Eggert, 2013/04/17
- Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, Glenn Morris, 2013/04/17
- Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, Paul Eggert, 2013/04/17
- Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, Glenn Morris, 2013/04/18
- Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/04/18
Re: MS-Windows build using Posix configury, Glenn Morris, 2013/04/17