Mail Archives: djgpp/2016/04/29/15:45:04
Hi,
On Friday, April 29, 2016 at 3:49:47 AM UTC-5, Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT spam DOT sux) [via djgpp AT spam DOT sux] wrote:
>
> This raises an issue that is IMO important to discuss. It is
> certainly important for me personally. Here it is:
>
> Do we still want/need to build latest Emacs versions with DJGPP?
What's changed since last binary release? What's the advantage in
having a newer version at all? Anything crucial? If not, then no,
we don't need it that badly, we'll just use the older version.
> Maintaining DJGPP compatibility in Emacs sources is a non-trivial
> task. That compatibility gets regularly broken, and the breakage is
> not apparent and doesn't get fixed until much later, because (AFAIK)
> no one tracks the development sources on a regular basis.
As far as development goes, we are woefully understaffed with volunteers.
Plus, it's surprisingly hard to find/make/update a decent setup to develop
for DOS. I've tried ameliorating that recently with my MetaDOS (FreeDOS)
distribution, but I didn't widely publicize it because most people don't
seem interested. (BTW, pakke, anybody ever actively use that?? Not me.
But it relies on Wget, which does exist for DOS, but again, part of the
problem is getting a decent setup [esp. working packet driver]. Not a
problem for QEMU or VBox, though.)
> I'm quite sure I'm the only one who builds the DJGPP Emacs and fixes
> any bugs I find for the past several years. Doing that is a burden
> that slowly becomes heavier and heavier (and I'm not getting younger,
> either).
We're all getting old (speaking for myself). It's not fun. :-(
Please don't feel obligated to any of us (although I'm sure you're not
that self-destructive).
> For example, I am currently trying to fix bugs in the DJGPP
> build of the latest pretest of Emacs 25.1, and I have already invested
> about 3 days of my free time into getting it to build. I still have a
> significant bug to fix (invoking programs doesn't work), and a couple
> of minor ones. The issues with being able to debug Emacs with GDB,
> discussed lately, only make the not-so-simple job even more so.
We're lucky anything still works. There's just not enough impetus
to fix all the things that need fixing.
> So please tell me if these efforts are still needed. Does anyone use
> a DJGPP Emacs for their routine work, on DJGPP or anything else?
> Because if no one needs this port, all my efforts to maintain it are
> just a huge waste of time.
I don't think any of us would die without it. So feel free to do
whatever makes you happy.
> We are all volunteers here. But if a volunteer's work is unused,
> he/she should invest their energy elsewhere.
>
> Please respond. If no one responds to these questions, I will
> conclude that the DJGPP port of Emacs is not needed anymore, and will
> stop trying to keep it in working order.
>
> Thanks in advance.
I'm afraid I haven't kept up in recent years (and am no guru in
programming either). It's still a nice program, just a bit overkill
for my needs.
- Raw text -