[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Emacs 21.3.50 on cygwin bootstrap failed.

From: Harald Maier
Subject: Re: Emacs 21.3.50 on cygwin bootstrap failed.
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 19:05:29 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Eric Hanchrow <address@hidden> writes:

>     "Steven Wu" <address@hidden> writes:
>     > I took the CVS src of Emacs 21.3.50 to cygwin and did make
>     > bootstrap.
> ...
>     "Harald Maier" <address@hidden> responds:
>     I assume you need the mingw-make 3.79.1.
> I'd like to understand this better -- Harald says that one needs the
> MinGW version of `make' to build Emacs under Cygwin.  But I am not
> sure that's completely correct.  My understanding is that
> * the Emacs source tree is capable of building two *different* flavors
>   of Emacs -- 1) the so-called "Win32" version (which does not require
>   the Cygwin DLLs); and 2) the pure Cygwin version (which of course
>   does require the Cygwin DLLs).
> * To build the Win32 version, you first cd to the `nt' directory.  You
>   then have a choice of software with which to do the build: 1)
>   Microsoft Visual Studio 6; and 2) the MinGW versions of gcc, make,
>   etc., *plus* `cp', `rm', and a few other Unix-style programs.  In
>   particular, using Cygwin make doesn't work, nor does using the
>   Cygwin version of gcc.
> * To build the Cygwin version, you do not cd into `nt'; instead you
>   simply do `configure && make bootstrap'.  However, this always fails
>   for me; I assume that the failures are simple mistakes in the Emacs
>   source, which will get fixed eventually.  I don't believe the
>   failures are due to Emacs never having been ported to Cygwin;
>   because some files refer to Cygwin (`configure.in', for example).  I
>   also assume that one does *not* use the MinGW tools when building
>   the Cygwin version.
> So have I understood everything correctly?
> Implicit in my question is a criticism of the file nt/INSTALL; that
> file has cleared up my confusion, and seems out of date.  I'd be
> delighted to update it if I only knew the facts.

I think you are right. From Steven's first statement it was not clear
to me that he wants to build a Cygwin Emacs. The second statement
clarified that.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]