Hi Pierre, Thanks for the feedback!
Pierre Langlois <pierre.langl...@gmx.com> writes: > I agree in general it's good to reuse code, however in this particular > case it's probably better to keep the phases duplicated. For example, > in the future one could update the emacs-next package to not require a > revision number anymore, and it's likely they'd forget to update the > emacs package since it'll still work. > > Does that make sense? It might be just a matter of taste, I don't have a > super strong opinion on this. It's important to realize that this is what caused the current problem to begin with so in a way I agree. However, I think there is a big difference between code that fails silently, and code that fails loudly. The native search paths failed "silently" since the package still built and even appeared to work (since the normal emacs with in my path). copy-file, thankfully, fails very loudly since the package simply won't build if it can't find the file to move. Plus the error message is quite good (It can't find the file). For this reason, it's likely a good thing that the native search paths code is duplicated, but I think the stip-double-wrap phase should be reused. Thanks, Morgan
