Re: some emacs-21.1.1 problems

[David Kastrup]

>>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:

 >> From: David Kastrup <David.Kastrup@t-online.de>
 >> Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug
 >> Date: 23 Nov 2001 11:58:08 +0100
 >> 
 >> >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il> writes:
 >> 
 >> >> From: David Kastrup <David.Kastrup@t-online.de>
 >> >> Date: 22 Nov 2001 21:24:35 +0100
 >> >> 
 >> >> From the above, BTW, I get the impression that the first thing you
 >> >> should throw out, free or not, is Cygwin.
 >> 
 Eli> Apart from Cygwin and DJGPP, there's no other comparable effort
 Eli> to port GNU software to Windows, so Windows users who cannot
 Eli> toss Windows have nowhere else to go.

 >> We were talking just an Emacs port and I have to say I find it
 >> surprising that you snipped my reference to mingw32 in order to make
 >> your point.  Emacs compiles with mingw32 and then should not exhibit
 >> the multitude of idiosyncrasies the original poster encountered.

 Eli> AFAIU, we were talking about ports of GNU software _besides_ Emacs.
 Eli> Jason made his remark about a program that wouldn't work with Emacs
 Eli> because that program was a Cygwin port, while Emacs wasn't.

 Eli> If I misunderstood the issue at hand, I apologize for the line
 Eli> noise.

Having reread the thread, I have to plead guilty to the line noise
accusation myself.  Indeed the interaction between a mingw32-compiled
Emacs and Cywin utilities was the problem.

 >> In short, I consider the decidedly smaller effort a good design
 >> decision.

 Eli> Actually, it takes more effort to produce a MinGW port than to
 Eli> produce the Cygwin port.

Yes, but I like the results better.  Perhaps some conversion stuff
might be automated at compilation time instead of providing a
runtime emulation package.  Not being in the Windows porting business,
I don't know.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de