emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: master bf97946d7dc: Merge branch 'scratch/no-purespace' into 'master


From: Po Lu
Subject: Re: master bf97946d7dc: Merge branch 'scratch/no-purespace' into 'master'
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2025 20:34:31 +0800
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)

Pip Cet <pipcet@protonmail.com> writes:

> "Po Lu" <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Please don't exaggerate: there's no hostility here.  Mistakes can and
>>> do happen, but please don't interpret mistakes as ill will.
>>>
>>> More to the point, merging this branch was discussed recently, but you
>>> never chimed in with your request to delay it, except that single
>>> message long ago.  If you'd reiterated your request now, it's quite
>>> possible we would have waited.
>>
>> That one message ought to have sufficed.  I never received a response to
>> it, which any reasonable person would have interpreted as assent.
>
> There were some mailing list problems lately.  If you ever responded to
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2024-12/msg00791.html, I
> didn't see such a response.  I'm not sure I count as a reasonable
> person, but if the entirety of the exchange is "Do this please"; "Why?";
> then total silence, I would not interpret that as assent.

Unfortunately you appear to be correct: I did not receive either of
those e-mails.

> The only DJGPP build I can test and access works fine with pdumper, but
> some of the changes are specific to FreeDOS (not MS-DOS) and I therefore
> haven't merged anything.
>
> That doesn't contradict what you said in any way, of course.  The
> current master branch most likely (once again) fails to build on MS-DOS,
> and it needs to be fixed if we don't want to take this opportunity to
> drop the port.  But if we decide to keep it, it's very unlikely the
> fixes will be significantly more complicated than they were for the
> FreeDOS part.

If you are in a position to do so, would you install your FreeDOS
patches now, supposing they are compatible with standard DOS/Windows?  I
have amassed a number of changes locally that enable Emacs to build
under FreeDOS's command interpreter, but never published them as they
interfered with compilation in Windows.

>> The DJGPP build requires unexec, as the portable dumper has not been
>>ported there.
>
> My experiments indicate no "porting" is required; some ifdefs have to be
> moved.  If the situation is different for old DJGPP or Microsoft DOS, we
> should investigate, of course.  As far as I can tell, we're talking
> about getting some configuration right, nothing that would count as
> coding in my book.

I largely tested on Microsoft systems at my organization, where some
localized editions of Windows 98 and XP Service Pack 1 are installed,
and on FreeDOS, all under DJGPP.  Nowhere have I an installation of
MS-DOS proper.

> It would probably be better if a free version of DOS were to be
> supported.  I submitted a patch which would have made Emacs run on
> twenty years of wine systems, but it was rejected because we don't want
> to support Free operating system if the non-free equivalent is more
> popular (or something to that effect).  As I didn't want to go over that
> argument again, I've kept my FreeDOS patches off the official Emacs
> channels.

Let us revisit this decision, for it would greatly facilitate updating
the Windows port for myself (and doubtless many others).  Although I
believe MSYS is also nonfunctional in Wine.


reply via email to

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