Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2017 15:46:09 -0500
For lack of familiarity with the Windows world, I don't know if typical
Windows users will want to add it to PATH (as a GNU/Linux user, of
course I'd do that), but I think the "frequently" above is incorrect.
Maybe I'm missing something. 29 packages (out of 166) in ELPA have a
Makefile. Taking just one random Makefile, company/Makefile, I see
this:
EMACS=emacs
[...]
compile:
${EMACS} -Q --batch -L . -f batch-byte-compile company.el company-*.el
If this Makefile is invoked with "make compile", it clearly expects
Emacs to be found along PATH. And even if Make is invoked from Emacs,
the directory where the Emacs binary was found is not added to PATH.
So how can this work without Emacs's binary being on PATH? And what
am I missing here?
Not meaning to come off as any final authority here, but speaking as someone deeply familiar with the Windows-platform (decades user-experience, 10+ MS developer certifications, lalala)... With the clause that I'm not som much a C/C++ kind of guy...
The most obvious problem these packages will encounter is that make (GNU make, or any other variant) is typically not installed on regular end-user Windows machines. It's not part of the regular Windows developer toolchain, which typically relies on MSBuild instead.
Expecting "make" to be available is something I would consider a portability-problem with the package, and I honestly don't think this is the Emacs-installer's job to put in place.