Re: compiling emacs/nt from cvs using cygwin tools

[slappysquirrel]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: "Le Wang" <l26wang@gmail.com>
> > Date: 23 Jul 2006 15:09:29 -0700
> >
> > >     * Supported development environments
> > >
> > >       To compile Emacs, you will need either Microsoft Visual C++ 2.0 or
> > >       later and nmake, or a Windows port of GCC 2.95 or later with MinGW
> > >       and W32 API support and a port of GNU Make.  You can use the Cygwin
> > >       ports of GCC, but Emacs requires the MinGW headers and libraries to
> > >       build (latest versions of the Cygwin toolkit, at least since v1.3.3,
> > >       include the MinGW headers and libraries as an integral part).
> > >
> > > If you think this leaves the issue not entirely clear, please point
> > > out where's the source of ambiguity, and I will try to improve the
> > > wording.
> >
> > Eli, is the Cygwin make a "port of GNU Make"?  A casual user might
> > assume so, as I did.
>
> Using a Cygwin port of Make is very different from building the Cygwin
> port of Emacs.  These two are completely unrelated issues.  If the
> Cygwin Make supported Windows-style d:/foo/bar file names correctly,
> one could have used it to build the native Windows port of Emacs; as
> things are, you can't, as the table in nt/INSTALL shows.
>
> > Hence my statement about the docs not explicitly stating that.
>
> State what? that the Cygwin Make cannot be used?  See the table
> further down in the file, which has these entries for Cygwin Make:
>
>     cygwin b20.1 make (3.75):            fails[1, 5]   fails[2, 5]
>     cygwin compiled gmake 3.77:          fails[1, 5]   fails[2, 5]
>     cygwin compiled make 3.78.1:         fails[5]      fails[2, 5]
>     cygwin compiled make 3.79.1:         fails[3, 5]   fails[2?, 5]
>
> > The rest of the nt/INSTALL you quoted above suggests
> > building from Cygwin should "just work" without the 4 part dance you
> > propose in another message.
>
> Why would you want to consider ``the rest of nt/INSTALL'' and
> disregard the portion that tells what you wanted it to say?
>
> > So I suggest:
> >
> > 1.  State explicitly that Cygwin make will not work.
>
> The file already says that, see the entries in the table I cited
> above.
>
> > 2.  Give specific instructions (i.e. the 4 step dance) for building
> > with Cygwin (bash, make, gcc, and all) already installed, and without
> > MingW or any other libraries.
>
> This information is already in the file.
>
> > I believe this is the most common scenario for users trying to build
> > Emacs.
>
> ??? The most common for whom?

Let me second the request to make the docs more clear.

I have cygwin make 3.81, which is more recent than any entry in the
compatibility table, so it left me wondering whether it might work.
[Again, isn't cygwin make a "port of GNU make"? Certainly seems
reasonable to think so.]

Anyway, what's the harm in replacing "and a port of GNU Make" with "and
a port of GNU Make (but not cygwin make)" ? It's a trivial change, and
at least two people would have been saved some trouble from attempting
a configuration that's known not to work...