Re: redundant DOC files

[Leo]

On 2007-01-21, Chris Moore said:

> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> You are probably packaging only a single version, so you should only
>> package a single DOC file, the one that goes with the binary you are
>> packaging.
>>
>> If you include in the package emacs-XX.YY.ZZ as well as emacs, you
>> should do the same with DOC.
>
> I think the bug that Leo is reporting is that 'make install' installs
> all DOC files, not just the newly built one.
>
> The top level Makefile is quite explicit about doing this:
>
>       if [ `(cd ./etc; /bin/pwd)` != `(cd $(DESTDIR)${docdir}; /bin/pwd)` ]; \
>       then \
>          echo "Copying etc/DOC-* to $(DESTDIR)${docdir} ..." ; \
>          (cd ./etc; tar -chf - DOC*) \
>       [...]
>
> A problem here is that the Makefile doesn't know which of the DOC-*
> files is the correct one to install, since that is determined by some
> Lisp code in loadup.el, and not written anywhere that the Makefile can
> easily get at it.

Can it just call the newly built emacs-22.0.92.N and get its version
number by doing something like:

src/emacs -batch -Q -eval "(message emacs-version)"

-- 
Leo <sdl.web AT gmail.com>                         (GPG Key: 9283AA3F)