Luc Teirlinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unless, of course, it would be possible to come up with an alternate
> design that would make ldefs-boot.el unnecessary, or automatically
> updating.
the explanation looks good; you should probably install it. if someone
wishes
Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> # bootstrap should always work with ldefs-boot.el.
>
> No, it does not always work. (How could it?) It only works if you
> update ldefs-boot whenever needed.
the "should" in the last sentence of the makefile frag implies the last
>From my previous reply:
I suggest the following exoansion of the comment in lisp/Makefile.in.
Unless, of course, it would be possible to come up with an alternate
design that would make ldefs-boot.el unnecessary, or automatically
updating.
Sincerely,
I recently had to update ldefs-boot.el because a new autoload cookie
for a variable had been added. The autoload made its way into
loaddefs.el but not into ldefs-boot.el.
That is normal.
The strange thing was that when
the autoload was needed and bootstrapping failed
d autoloads yet. In that case we have to use ldefs-boot.el;
> # bootstrap should always work with ldefs-boot.el.
>
> No, it does not always work. (How could it?) It only works if you
> update ldefs-boot whenever needed.
the "should" in the last sentence of the makefile f
I recently had to update ldefs-boot.el because a new autoload cookie
for a variable had been added. The autoload made its way into
loaddefs.el but not into ldefs-boot.el. The strange thing was that when
the autoload was needed and bootstrapping failed because it was not
available, loaddefs.el
