Hi Makoto. Thanks for the report and the patch. On 06/28/2012 06:47 AM, Makoto Fujiwara wrote: > We have following line in automake-1.12.1/lib/elisp-comp. > > 73 mkdir $tempdir > 74 cp "$@" $tempdir > 75 > 76 ( > 77 cd $tempdir > 78 echo "(setq load-path (cons nil load-path))" > script > 79 $EMACS -batch -q -l script -f batch-byte-compile *.el || exit $? > 80 mv *.elc .. > 81 ) || exit $? > 82 > 83 (exit 0); exit 0 > > It seems to me the intention of line 78 is to set load-path > to add default directory on top of existing load-path. > > This 'script' is OK if the file to compile is only one in the > directory. > > But if some files are in the directory there and we will > compile file by file on the same directory, there may be a > possibility that some files load another file in the same > directory. In that case this 'script' fails to read such ones. > > I do have problem compiling *.el files with tc-2.3.1 (svn version) > Could you expose such problems in a minimal test case? This way, I could add it to the automake testsuite, to ensure the issue doesn't represent itself in the future. Thanks.
> Following patch fixes this type of problem, thanks a lot. > > By the way, the same patch was once proposed as > http://osdir.com/ml/sysutils.automake.patches/2003-01/msg00004.html > and fix seems to have made, but real line was dropped with > unknown reason. > > --- lib/elisp-comp.orig 2012-06-01 22:47:10.000000000 +0900 > +++ lib/elisp-comp 2012-06-28 13:28:44.000000000 +0900 > @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ > > ( > cd $tempdir > - echo "(setq load-path (cons nil load-path))" > script > + echo "(setq load-path (cons \"../\" (cons nil load-path)))" > script > $EMACS -batch -q -l script -f batch-byte-compile *.el || exit $? > mv *.elc .. > ) || exit $? > > The patch seems small and harmless, but unfortunately I know nothing at all about Lisp or Emacs, so I can't judge whether such a change could have unintended consequences. Perchance someone more knowledgeable than me in this area is reading the thread, and can chime in? Otherwise I will go ahead and push the patch in 72 hours. Thanks, Stefano