[Top][All Lists]

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

bug#18205: Obsolete patterns in auto-mode-alist

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: bug#18205: Obsolete patterns in auto-mode-alist
Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2014 14:53:43 +0300

> Date: Sat, 9 Aug 2014 10:11:54 +0100
> From: Reuben Thomas <address@hidden>
> Cc: Richard Stallman <address@hidden>, Glenn Morris <address@hidden>, 
> address@hidden
> > The current DJGPP build "just works", given that you have a correct
> > setup on a system that supports the build (requirements for supporting
> > the build might be different from those for supporting running of the
> > binary).
> The trouble is that despite carefully-written and lengthy documentation,
> these requirements aren't fully documented

They are documented for systems that the people who wrote those
instructions had access to.  FreeDOS is not among them, so I don't
know if it complies.

> and yet it seems users are expected to build Emacs for themselves

Not "expected", "encouraged".

> So either that expectation should be changed (i.e. binary builds should be
> supplied in a timely fashion to the DJGPP site, and that sentence in the
> documentation changed), or the build instructions should be improved.

I supplied the 23.3 binary.  I intend to upload a 24.4 binary once it
is out.  Previous versions were IMO not stable enough to warrant an

As for improving the instructions, I don't know what to do about
that.  Once again, I have multiple success reports from people
building Emacs on various platforms that support DOS, and only one
failure report from you.  With all due respect, I don't think this is
a sign of inadequate instructions.

As I wrote earlier, if you are willing to continue building the DJGPP
port on FreeDOS on a more or less regular basis, I'm here to help you
debug whatever problems you originally had with your build.

> If people are still using Emacs on DOS, and they're expected to build it
> from source, surely this is not a waste of effort? Or, no-one is using it,
> and we should remove the port.

See above: there's a world between these 2 extremities.  Evidently,
people who have working DJGPP installations do succeed in building
Emacs, and there are still users who'd like to have newer binaries.

> > Given the above, investing efforts in moving DJGPP to the Posix
> > configury is a waste of resources that are best applied to parts of
> > Emacs that will benefit users of modern systems.
> >
> FreeDOS is an active project, and it's free. It seems odd to me that we
> should be happy that Emacs builds on a defunct proprietary system, and not
> (apparently) on a closely-related, active, free one.

The DJGPP port of Emacs is currently supported by a single individual
-- yours truly.  I'm doing the minimum to keep the port alive, so that
I could invest most of my scarce free time to more broadly useful
Emacs tasks.  If you want to help in supporting the DJGPP port,
welcome aboard.  If not, I respectfully request that you trust me to
do the best I can in the little time I can afford devoting to this.
Currently, I don't plan to move my DJGPP development environment to
FreeDOS, I simply cannot afford such an effort (FreeDOS is
sufficiently different from MS-DOS and its other emulations to
necessitate a non-trivial effort).  I understand the theory behind the
urge to move to FreeDOS, but it will have to be done by someone else.

reply via email to

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