Hi Keita, Ikumi Keita <ik...@ikumi.que.jp> writes:
> Yes, it does the trick, too. I took my approach because it circumvents > excessive invocation of "emacs -batch ..." and reduces the extra time > which "make" takes (brief, but not trivial). > However, I don't have strong preference about it. Maybe I'm confused, but suppose we apply this change: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- diff --git a/auctex.el b/auctex.el index 2f7af507..8b15e5c1 100644 --- a/auctex.el +++ b/auctex.el @@ -42,11 +42,9 @@ ;; (require 'tex-site (expand-file-name "tex-site.el" ;; (file-name-directory load-file-name)) -(autoload 'TeX-load-hack - (expand-file-name "tex-site.el" - (file-name-directory load-file-name))) -(TeX-load-hack) - +(require 'tex-site + (expand-file-name "tex-site.el" + (file-name-directory load-file-name))) (provide 'auctex) ;;; auctex.el ends here --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- and yours: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- diff --git a/GNUmakefile b/GNUmakefile index 01608188..3ef225e6 100644 --- a/GNUmakefile +++ b/GNUmakefile @@ -46,7 +46,8 @@ ALL_GENERATED_FILES=$(MAIN_GENERATED_FILES) \ # Generate & compile everything including the manuals below doc/. all: $(ALL_GENERATED_FILES) compile auctex-autoloads.el -compile: $(patsubst %.el,%.elc,$(wildcard *.el style/*.el)) tex-site.elc +COMPILE_ELC= $(filter-out auctex.elc, $(patsubst %.el,%.elc,$(wildcard *.el sty le/*.el))) +compile: $(COMPILE_ELC) tex-site.elc --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- What happens then to the users who install AUCTeX from ELPA as a package? IIUC, Emacs will then rifle through the installation directory and byte-compile all files without any makefiles etc. That compilation will again choke on the change above, right? If so, we have to go for the lisp version, or am I missing something? Best, Arash
