Subject: Re: 1.5.4-1: Problem with XEmacs, fonts, and subprocesses.
From: Christopher Faylor <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:15:18 -0400

On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 03:13:13PM -0500, Jerry James wrote:
>I wandered over here to see what was up with the bug report that started
>this thread.  Igor's solution works for me.  Thanks, Igor!
>
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>But seriously, if anyone would like to be an official Xemacs liason and
>>officially test snapshots when they happen that would certainly be
>>welcome.  I will not be running Xemacs to test things, unfortunately.
>>I would be glad to work with someone who was willing to test debug
>>versions of the Cygwin DLL and provide intelligent feedback on
>>problems.
>
>I'll do that.  I'm one of the XEmacs developers, by the way.

Ok.  You're subscribed to cygwin-developers.  Please try out Xemacs when
you see discussion there about changes to a new snapshot and pay
particular attention when a pending release is mentioned.

If you are interested in XEmacs bug reports you should be subscribed to
the cygwin mailing list too.  You have my condolences, if you're really
willing to do that.

>Also, if I take on this role, it is with the caveat that I'm a
>professor, so I reserve the right to be pedantic at the drop of a hat.
>Er, no, what I meant to say is that my schedule is somewhat
>unpredictable, except for around finals time, when I can confidently
>predict that I will be extremely busy.  If you're willing to work with
>a guy who might take 2 or 3 days to answer your email, I'm your man.

2 or 3 days would be heaven as long as you are providing accurate
feedback.  Just to be clear: I'm not going to be driving this.  I'm
expecting good bug reports (see http://cygwin.com/bugs.html).

To summarize bugs.html, a good bug report will entail detailed
descriptions of the problem.  It will not contain phrases like "and then
it went all to hell" or "and then it just fizzled out".  It will not
editorialize on how important the problem is to you or how angry you are
that the problem occurred to you or how much the documentation sucks.  It
won't go into great detail about what you had for breakfast on a given
day and it won't contain a treatise on the way you think software projects
should be run.  If you look at code, it won't contain shock, anger, or
amazement at the way the code was organized, commented, or indented.

I'm not going to get involved in discussions on how to set up your
environment or what packages to install via setup.exe.  The mailing
list can help with that.

Oh, and no personal email, please.  The discussions belong on the
appropriate mailing lists.

I'm not saying that you will do any of these things.  I'm giving you
care and feeding of cgf (and pretty much any developer) instructions
here.

>> If someone is interested in doing this perhaps they might also be
>> interested in providing an Xemacs package for the cygwin distribution.
>> This would be automatically preapproved.
>
>Sure thing.  Do you want X with that?  (I prefer fries.)

That would be up to you.  Check out the information at
http://cygwin.com/setup.html for what is entailed.

>Also, FWIW, I compared the environments of an XEmacs started from the
>shell (working) and an XEmacs started from an icon (not working).  The
>one started from the shell had these environment settings that were not
>present in the nonworking version:
>
>"!::=::\\"
>"!C:=C:\\cygwin\\bin"
>"MAKE_MODE=unix"
>"MANPATH=:/usr/ssl/man"
>"OLDPWD=/cygdrive/f/build-21.5"
>"PKG_CONFIG_PATH=:/usr/X11R6/lib/pkgconfig"
>"PROMPT=$P$G"
>"PS1=\\[\\033]0;\\w\\007\n\\033[32m\\]\\u@\\h \\[\\033[33m\\w\\033[0m\\]\n$ "
>"PWD=/cygdrive/f"
>"SHLVL=1"
>"TEXMF={/usr/share/lilypond/2.0.1,/usr/share/texmf}"
>"USER=[censored by Jerry]"
>"_=/usr/local/test/bin/xemacs-21.5-b16.exe"

Those look like variables that came from the command shell.

>The PATH variables are different for the two versions, also.  The
>difference is that the one started from the shell starts with
>"/usr/local/bin:/usr/bin:/bin:", and ends with ":/usr/X11R6/bin", both
>of which are missing in the nonworking version.  If I'm reading the FAQ
>correctly (http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_4.html#SEC35), this could be the
>source of the problem.
>
>Are we doing something wrong, or should the PATH have been magically
>modified somehow?

The only thing that the Cygwin DLL does explicitly is convert the PATH
from windows to unix format.  It doesn't add or delete directories from
the PATH.

The PATH that a non-console-started version of Xemacs sees would come
from the standard windows location.  The PATH that an Xemacs-from-shell
sees would depend on what the shell has set.

Btw, there is a new cygwin snapshot available that has been reported
to solve the cut/paste problems:  http://cygwin.com/snapshot.html .
--
Please use the resources at cygwin.com rather than sending personal email.
Special for spam email harvesters: send email to [email-masked]
and be permanently blocked from mailing lists at sources.redhat.com

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/