Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: From: Peter Ring To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: RE: Emacs for Cygwin (was: cygwin-mount.el, Using GDB in NTEMACS) Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 16:14:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" In case anyone care, there is a readily available and well maintained X-enabled cygwin port of XEmacs. Pick the xemacs* packages from ftp://ftp.holonlinux.com/pub/XonWindows/updates/RPMS/. It's apparently part of a fairly complete rpm-based distribution of cygwin-based ports, XonWindows http://www.holonlinux.com/product/xonwin/. My japanese is not that good, so I can't tell you any more about it ;) Unless you go for the whole thing (rather than the canonical cygwin.com distribution), rpm will complain about missing library packages; just --nodeps and go ahead. Don't ask me about where to find or use rpm; if you can't find out yourself, I suggest that you stick to the kosher cygwin.com distribution. Kind regards Peter Ring -----Original Message----- From: Jon Cast [mailto:jcast AT ou DOT edu] Sent: 28. februar 2002 15:45 To: John A. Turner Subject: Re: Emacs for Cygwin (was: cygwin-mount.el, Using GDB in NTEMACS) Sorry to start a flamewar, but this needs replying to: "John A. Turner" wrote: > smiley notwithstanding, that doesn't seem all that amusing to me Of course not. After all, you (and all those Linux supporters and every one else (referring to the Linux supporters, not to you) who hates RMS) are completely non-political and are therefore /deeply/ offended by GNU's political beliefs, since they are completely non-contradictory to your completely non-existant political beliefs. Maybe that's not entirely correct, but if you can't see how that would be funny if it /were/ correct, there's no point in continuing this. If it's wrong, but you think it would be funny were it true, please correct me. > XEmacs is of course GPL'd, and I'd direct anyone who might wonder > about the source of misguided comments such as the above to: From the website you directed me to (from the RMS quote): > But I can't do that, because substantial parts of XEmacs don't have > legal papers, or don't have known authors. Do you deny this (about the ``don't have known authors'' part?) Also from that website: > There is no difference in the nature of the copyrights or licenses > of the two projects. Copyright is defined by law and international > treaty, and is automatically awarded to the author as soon as a work > is published. The important thing here is the ``automatically awarded'' part. Do you agree that means implicitly under Copyright's default terms? Of course, a license may be attached to override those terms. /But that license can only be attached by the copyright holder/. If we don't know who the copyright holder is, we cannot have a license statement by him. So, the code is under default terms, i.e., proprietary. Do you disagree? Jon Cast Btw, some XEmacs developers refuse to assign copyright to the FSF. So, it doesn't seem unreasonable that some Emacs supporters refuse to use XEmacs. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/