Re: [Emacs-diffs] Changes to emacs/nt/INSTALL,v

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:13:05 +0200
> From: "Juanma Barranquero" <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
> 
> >  cvs-update was introduced as a very useful shortcut, which takes half
> >  a minute, if only a few Lisp files were modified
> 
> Hm. I would've said that the whole point of cvs-update is to be more
> correct than recompile; else, why not simply use recompile, which is
> faster?

Because without the other prerequisites of cvs-update, especially
autoloads, you will have a buggy Emacs.

> > rather than one and
> > a half hour taken by bootstrapping.
> 
> Just out of curiosity: in what kind of hardware? On a 3GHz Pentium 4,
> it takes less than half an hour for me, from `make maintainer-clean'
> to installation (though I cut some time by always doing an in-place
> installation). That with MinGW's gcc; when I used Visual C it was even
> faster.

It's the same hardware, so maybe half an hour is so long for me that I
took it for three times that ;-)  I don't really remember how long it
was exactly, but it seemed forever.

> I'm more interested in the question of whether nt makefile's
> recompile should call lisp makefile's cvs-update, or perhaps recompile
> + updates.

I never do a "make recompile" from the nt subdirectory.