Re: ldefs-boot.el

[Richard M. Stallman]

    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 because it was not
    available, loaddefs.el had already been regenerated and the variable
    was already defined in it.  But apparently only ldefs-boot.el and not
    the updated loaddefs.el had been loaded at that stage.

I don't see a reason not to change that, but there might be a good
reason that I don't see yet.

    Is the moral of this story that each time that somebody adds a new
    autoload that is necessary for compilation during bootstrapping (as
    opposed to just an autoload that allows the user to call an
    interactive function without having to load the file first), one has
    to update ldefs-boot by overwriting it with a valid up to date copy of
    loaddefs.el?

It seems to be so, with the current design.  Of course, most autoloads
are not necessary for compilation during bootrapping.  As for detecting
those that are, the current system, which is to see that bootstrap fails
and update ldefs-boot.el, might be the most efficient one.