Re: Precompiled Emacs

[Johan Andersson]

> It's not as nice as ~/.evm but it's workable.

I don't think this would even would because the path is most likely
extended to absolute. Not sure though.


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Phillip Lord
<phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>wrote:

>
>
> I think this sounds reasonable; the alternative of /tmp/evm is nice but
> will get deleted frequently, and /tmp runs out of space on some
> machines. It's not as nice as ~/.evm but it's workable.
>
> I think having the installations separable from main emacs is good, as
> these are often customised.
>
> Phil
>
> Johan Andersson <johan.rejeep@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I'm thinking I could tell Evm users to create /usr/local/evm and make it
> > accessible. Pre compiled installations would have to be installed there.
> If
> > they do not like it, they could always compile from source.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Phillip Lord
> > <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> I didn't know the answer to this, so I tried it out. Sadly, the answer
> >> is yes, including in the make file as far as I can see. The only reason
> >> that Emacs normally works in this way is because it's already installed.
> >>
> >> I tried doing ./configure like so...
> >>
> >> ./configure --without-all --prefix=/tmp --exec-prefix=/tmp
> >>
> >> with the hope that the built emacs could be transferred to another
> >> machine and then make installed, but that doesn't work (I don't quite
> >> know why). Besides you would now be dependent on the build tools which
> >> change over time as others have said.
> >>
> >> For travis, I think the best option is to use a PPA and install into
> >> that. Emacs does support multiple minor version installations. But, you
> >> lose multiple platform testing.
> >>
> >> Other than that I am all out of ideas!
> >>
> >> Phil
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Johan Andersson <johan.rejeep@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > The compile time is an issue on Travis.
> >> >
> >> > If I ./configure, make and re-tar like you say, will there not be any
> >> > hard-coded paths that will be incorrect on some other machine.
> >> > On Nov 4, 2013 3:39 PM, "Phillip Lord" <phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Okay, now I understand. This is a good aim, and would be a good
> thing to
> >> >> do. You are right about wanting to test between point releases -- in
> >> >> fact, for testing, this is more valuable than between major
> releases, I
> >> >> think.
> >> >>
> >> >> In a sense, I am not sure that I would be worried about speed of
> >> >> installation -- as this is largely useful for package developers, and
> >> >> it's a per emacs release cost (multiplied by the number of machines a
> >> >> developer has).
> >> >>
> >> >> However, given that this is for testing, from my own perspective, I
> >> >> would prefer not to mess around with my main installation; that is, I
> >> >> want my own version of Emacs and the rest of my system untouched. So,
> >> >> why not compile Emacs, and then just launch it from the directory in
> >> >> which it is built? To precompile, simply untar the distribution,
> >> >> ./configure, make, and then retar everything. This should be pretty
> >> >> platform independent, doesn't require root, and if you put
> everything in
> >> >> one place means a simple delete cleans everything up. It also has the
> >> >> advantage that the Emacs in question is relative clean (i.e. not
> patched
> >> >> by any downstream distributor) which is a useful test in itself.
> >>
>
> --
> Phillip Lord,                           Phone: +44 (0) 191 222 7827
> Lecturer in Bioinformatics,             Email:
> phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk
> School of Computing Science,
> http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/phillip.lord
> Room 914 Claremont Tower,               skype: russet_apples
> Newcastle University,                   twitter: phillord
> NE1 7RU
>