Re: mh-e/mh-loaddefs.el removed from CVS

[Jason Rumney]

Bill Wohler <address@hidden> writes:

>>> The lisp/Makefile.in has been changed to regenerate
>>> mh-e/mh-loaddefs.el, but the corresponding lisp/makefile.w32-in remain
>>> unchanged. Is that ok?
>
> Done. Can someone please take care of verifying the change and
> implementing any "tricky bits" that Juanma mentioned?

I have implemented the "tricky bits" and tested them on
CMD.EXE.

> I noticed a few discrepancies between Makefile.in and
> makefile.w32-in which may or may not be problems:
>
> 1. AUTOGENEL does not exist in makefile.w23-in, nor a maintainer-clean
>    target which uses it.

As you say, there is no maintainer-clean target in the w32 makefiles.
I'm not sure how important it is to be able to start from a clean CVS
tree without checking it out fresh. If it is important, someone can
add the necessary targets to the w32 makefiles.

> 2. compile depends on $(lisp)/subdirs.el in Makefile.in, subdirs.el in
>    makefile.w32-in.

I have changed all references to .el files to use $(lisp).

> 3. bootstrap in makefile.w32-in depends on "finder-data custom-deps"
>    while boostrap in Makefile.in does not.

But bootstrap-after does depend on those files. I have seen reports of
Windows reporting no documentation for built-in commands, so this may
be the reason.