On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattar...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/28/2012 06:47 AM, Makoto Fujiwara wrote: >> I do have problem compiling *.el files with tc-2.3.1 (svn version)
I think this is the relevant Makefile.am: http://code.google.com/p/tcode/source/browse/trunk/tc/lisp/Makefile.am It confuses me thoroughly. > 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 $? >> >> > The patch seems small and harmless, but unfortunately I know nothing at > all about Lisp or Emacs, so I can't judge whether such a change could > have unintended consequences. Perchance someone more knowledgeable than > me in this area is reading the thread, and can chime in? Otherwise I > will go ahead and push the patch in 72 hours. I'm no elisp master, but here's what I see is happening: * Developer defines something like lisp_LISP = foo.el bar.el baz.el * baz.el (say) depends on quux.el, in the same directory but not listed in the primary. * At `make' time, everything in lisp_LISP is copied to a subdirectory and batch-byte-compile is called on all those files. * Because quux.el wasn't copied over, the compile fails. * Adding the parent directory to load-path might fix that, but I wonder if it will still break on VPATH builds? Maybe the correct answer is to add ../$(srcdir) or $(abs_srcdir) insted. * Why (in the .el files) is the developer depending on a file that's not being compiled? will this cause automake to silently do the wrong thing if a new .el file has been listed and Makefile.am doesn't get updated? Now you can go ahead and install an incomplete package. * Should the current directory come before the source directory? There's another (potential) problem. The script that elisp-comp creates is called "script". Does it make sense to allow files without a .el extension to appear in a _LISP primary? Currently, automake lets you get away with it, but it will only compile *.el anyway (even though it copies $@ into the temporary dir). I don't know enough about elisp to say, but if that's fixed, then "script" should be given a better filename (using mktemp or something) so it doesn't clobber a user's script. -- Jack
