Re: Windows 9X without KernelEx

[Po Lu]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

> As I said, I'm not sure Uniscribe is a problem in practice.  We could
> make it a mandatory requirement, like UNICOWS.DLL, if needed.

Since Uniscribe is to be removed anyway, no harm will ever come of
rendering it optional, though if you consider this aspect of the patch
too dangerous for the release, it can wait till Emacs 31, as the dll
does exist on the machine that is meant to receive Emacs 30.

> Does Emacs fail to start due to these being absent?

Yes, the link loader won't load emacs.exe for want of these symbols,
which is the criterion I applied in compiling these lists.

> Again, what bad things happen due to that?  Since we now officially
> don't support Windows 95, can we just forget about those?

It's a little galling to see something declared "officially unsupported"
within 24 hours of my writing the code to restore support for it...