emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Finding the dump (redux)


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Finding the dump (redux)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:19:56 +0300

> Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> From: Ali Bahrami <ali_gnu2@emvision.com>
> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 10:39:17 -0600
> 
> > This has been considered back when the portable dumping ideas were
> > discussed.  One reason why it was rejected is because it would require
> > end users to have a C development toolchain if they want to re-dump
> > Emacs (with some of their own code added).  Support for re-dumping is
> > a goal in Emacs development, and although we are not there yet, doing
> > something that would prevent it is a non-starter.  We want users to be
> > able to re-dump Emacs using just Emacs and nothing else.
> > 
> 
>     Is it really a conflict? Can't we do both?
> 
> We would still have support for putting a pdump file
> next to the binary, or of using the --dump-file option.
> We could even retain the PATH_EXEC support if that helped.
> I don't think we need to take anything away, in terms of
> re-dumping Emacs using just Emacs.
> 
> What we'd be doing, is to provide the final default (backstop)
> dump internally, rather than on disk. If a dump is present through
> any other method, that one would be used. But if not, as I think would
> be the case for most emacs users who get it via some distro package,
> emacs would 'just work', without their having to even know about
> pdump. Most distros wouldn't ship any separate pdmp files, but
> end users could add what they want.

I don't understand: if the user re-dumps Emacs, then under your
suggestion the user will have the same problem with Emacs locating the
pdumper file as we have today.  So what did we fix, exactly?



reply via email to

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