GNU bug report logs - #62484
Join INSTALL and INSTALL.REPO

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 62484 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 62484 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: c.buhtz <at> posteo.jp
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Join INSTALL and INSTALL.REPO
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:40:20 +0000

Hello,

IMHO it is unusual that a build system depends on if I use a tarball or 
a git repo. Never seen this before. No matter that there might be good 
technical reason to this it should be adopted to the "usual" users.

A user does look into a README first, finds no build infos and then 
looks for a BUILD file. Can't find one and tries INSTALL (which is not 
intended to have build infos because build and install are different 
things). User (me) found an INSTALL and stuck to it. 
configure-make-system is usual and known. No need to read all the docs 
from the beginning (where the link is to the exception INSTALL.REPO). So 
I just started at "2." and it failed because I used a git repo instead 
of a tarball.

You see.

IMHO it would improve the things if you would join INSTALL and 
INSTALL.REPO back together and also put a TOC on top of it.

I assume there is technically no way to remove the difference between 
tarball-build and git-build, right?

Kind
Christian

Related to:
62482 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
62480 <at> debbugs.gnu.org

Message #8 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jean Louis <bugs <at> gnu.support>
To: 62484 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62484: Acknowledgement (Join INSTALL and INSTALL.REPO)
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 09:18:41 +0300

* GNU bug Tracking System <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org> [2023-03-27 19:06]:
> Thank you for filing a new bug report with debbugs.gnu.org.

> If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
> send it to 62484 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

I have not filed this report, but I have got confirmation.

--
Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/

Message #16 received at 62484 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Stefan Kangas <stefankangas <at> gmail.com>
To: c.buhtz <at> posteo.jp
Cc: 62484 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#62484: Join INSTALL and INSTALL.REPO
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2023 17:01:21 -0700

tags 62484 wontfix notabug
close 62484
thanks

c.buhtz <at> posteo.jp writes:

> IMHO it is unusual that a build system depends on if I use a tarball or a git
> repo. Never seen this before. No matter that there might be good technical
> reason to this it should be adopted to the "usual" users.
>
> A user does look into a README first, finds no build infos and then looks for a
> BUILD file. Can't find one and tries INSTALL (which is not intended to have
> build infos because build and install are different things). User (me) found an
> INSTALL and stuck to it. configure-make-system is usual and known. No need to
> read all the docs from the beginning (where the link is to the exception
> INSTALL.REPO). So I just started at "2." and it failed because I used a git repo
> instead of a tarball.
>
> You see.
>
> IMHO it would improve the things if you would join INSTALL and INSTALL.REPO back
> together and also put a TOC on top of it.

Unfortunately, I think that would just confuse the situation even more.
Users building from the tarball should not have to worry about the
details in INSTALL.REPO.  This takes priority over users pulling the git
repository.

> I assume there is technically no way to remove the difference between
> tarball-build and git-build, right?

Correct.

On balance, I'm closing this bug.  Sorry.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.