[aur-general] Compiling emacs lisp files
Hi, I'm currently maintaining the ninja package on the AUR [1]. Recently, there has been an issue about which I'd like to ask for your advice: ninja contains an files for emacs to support edititng the rules files of ninja. A user suggested that I compile the provided .el file to an .elc file. I did that, but then other users complained about the build-dependency on emacs. Now another user suggested that in the PKGBUILD, I should check whether emacs is installed and only then compile the .el file. I'm not totally opposed to this, but it feels a bit strange that the package is different, depending on the system it's built on. What would you do in this situation? Thanks in advance! Best, Mika [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ninja/
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:37:43PM +0100, Mika Fischer wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently maintaining the ninja package on the AUR [1]. Recently, there has been an issue about which I'd like to ask for your advice:
ninja contains an files for emacs to support edititng the rules files of ninja. A user suggested that I compile the provided .el file to an .elc file. I did that, but then other users complained about the build-dependency on emacs. Now another user suggested that in the PKGBUILD, I should check whether emacs is installed and only then compile the .el file. I'm not totally opposed to this, but it feels a bit strange that the package is different, depending on the system it's built on.
What would you do in this situation?
I would just simply comment out the emacs stuff and leave a note for users that want to compile that in. Or you can do it the other way and put in the emacs stuff, uncommented, and users have to comment it out themselves. -- William Giokas | KaiSforza GnuPG Key: 0xE99A7F0F Fingerprint: F078 CFF2 45E8 1E72 6D5A 8653 CDF5 E7A5 E99A 7F0F
Am 18.12.2012 21:46, schrieb William Giokas:
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:37:43PM +0100, Mika Fischer wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently maintaining the ninja package on the AUR [1]. Recently, there has been an issue about which I'd like to ask for your advice:
ninja contains an files for emacs to support edititng the rules files of ninja. A user suggested that I compile the provided .el file to an .elc file. I did that, but then other users complained about the build-dependency on emacs. Now another user suggested that in the PKGBUILD, I should check whether emacs is installed and only then compile the .el file. I'm not totally opposed to this, but it feels a bit strange that the package is different, depending on the system it's built on.
What would you do in this situation?
I would just simply comment out the emacs stuff and leave a note for users that want to compile that in. Or you can do it the other way and put in the emacs stuff, uncommented, and users have to comment it out themselves.
I second that. Byte compiled files would not be usable for users using xemacs or sxemacs.
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:37:43 +0100
Mika Fischer
Hi,
I'm currently maintaining the ninja package on the AUR [1]. Recently, there has been an issue about which I'd like to ask for your advice:
ninja contains an files for emacs to support edititng the rules files of ninja. A user suggested that I compile the provided .el file to an .elc file. I did that, but then other users complained about the build-dependency on emacs. Now another user suggested that in the PKGBUILD, I should check whether emacs is installed and only then compile the .el file. I'm not totally opposed to this, but it feels a bit strange that the package is different, depending on the system it's built on.
What would you do in this situation?
I would leave it at .el files. Anyone who really cares about .elc files will already know how to create them. The speed difference won't be all that noticeable anyway. -- Jonathan Arnold Webstream: http://hieronymus.soup.io Talent wins games, but team work and intelligence wins championships. Michael Jordan
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 08:37:43PM +0100, Mika Fischer wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently maintaining the ninja package on the AUR [1]. Recently, there has been an issue about which I'd like to ask for your advice:
ninja contains an files for emacs to support edititng the rules files of ninja. A user suggested that I compile the provided .el file to an .elc file. I did that, but then other users complained about the build-dependency on emacs. Now another user suggested that in the PKGBUILD, I should check whether emacs is installed and only then compile the .el file. I'm not totally opposed to this, but it feels a bit strange that the package is different, depending on the system it's built on.
What would you do in this situation?
Thanks in advance!
Best, Mika
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ninja/ ---end quoted text---
If GNU version is present, compile them in post-install hook. -- My AUR packages - https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=AlexanderR
participants (5)
-
alexander.r＠gmx.com
-
Jonathan Arnold
-
Mika Fischer
-
Stefan Husmann
-
William Giokas