X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Checker-Version:	SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status:	No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
	autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2
Date:	Fri, 29 Apr 2016 23:19:50 +0300
Message-Id:	<83vb30upzt.fsf@gnu.org>
From:	"Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org) [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<64c70a9b-9dd3-44c0-92a1-453173378e92@googlegroups.com>
	(djgpp AT delorie DOT com)
Subject:	Re: Is DJGPP Emacs still wanted? (was: GCC 3.4.6 -gcoff produces
	executable without line number info)
References:	<83bn4uxben DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <837ffix9o7 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<5722455F DOT 3020906 AT gmx DOT de> <831t5py22r DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <57228FEC DOT 9080408 AT gmx DOT de> <83mvocx0iw DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <64c70a9b-9dd3-44c0-92a1-453173378e92 AT googlegroups DOT com>
X-detected-operating-system:	by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic]
X-Received-From:	2001:4830:134:3::e
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "rugxulo AT gmail DOT com [via djgpp AT delorie DOT com]" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>

Thanks for the feedback.

> >   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.

"Crucial" is in the eyes of the beholder.  The list of important
changes is large, you can read it here, and then judge for yourself:

  http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/tree/etc/NEWS?h=emacs-25

(It doesn't say which changes are relevant for the DJGPP build, so you
get to glean that yourself.  Or ask me.)

> Please don't feel obligated to any of us (although I'm sure you're not
> that self-destructive).

If the job needs a couple of days of my time once in a year or two, I
can do that, provided that the result will be used by someone.

Previously, there were additional reasons to keep the port alive: it
had a few features that other platforms could only dream about.  But I
gradually ported all those features to the general-purpose code (the
last one was text-mode menus), so that reason is now gone.  The only
reason to keep going on is DJGPP users who need this port at least
sometimes.  Thus the question above.

> > 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.

Yes; except that I don't think it's just luck.  It's a lot of hard
work, by several individuals.

> > 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.

Well, thanks.  I surely hope no one will die.  The question is: will
they be less happy?

- Raw text -