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 Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <3CF79F7C.9040303@ece.gatech.edu> Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:06:20 -0400 From: Charles Wilson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011019 Netscape6/6.2 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nicholas Wourms CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: XEmacs on cygwin [Was: Re: missing file FOO.dll] References: <20020531154505 DOT 88704 DOT qmail AT web21002 DOT mail DOT yahoo DOT com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nicholas Wourms wrote: > Is there a fundemental reason (now) why the xemacs people refuse to merge > their cygwin packages into the official cygwin tree? Yep. #1) They don't want to do it. (Understand that XEmacs consists of about 100 different packages -- all of the lisp subpackages are shipped/installed separately. The XEmacs folks even created their own fork of our setup.exe to better serve their needs). #2) We don't want to do it -- at least, nobody has volunteered to do so. The obvious person to handle that -- since he's handling the cygwin port of XEmacs that xemacs.org ships -- is Andy Piper. However, I doubt he wants to surrender his current freedom (as absolute controller of the windows CVS branch, the native windows package, and the cygwin/windows package) and become subject to the vicissitudes of cygwin-apps... Worse, suppose a third party decided to package a cygwin-setup-installable version of XEmacs, even though Andy, the official maintainer of all things Windows/XEamcs, hypothethically refused to do so and would probably object to undercutting his own cygwin-XEmacs. This is a recipe for trouble; let this sleeping dog lie. > Seems like this > would be a nice package to have, espcially now that cygwin-xfree has been > merged. Is xemacs one of those packages that could be setup to act like > rxvt, where there is cygwin-console, mingw, and X11 functionality? Nope. You can have "native" build, with console and MSwindows GUI "native" build, with console and GTK(MSwindows version) GUI (**) cygiwn build, with console and MSwindows GUI cygwin build, with console and X GUI cygwin build, with console and GTK(X version) GUI (*) cygwin build, with console and GTK(MSwindows version) GUI (**) But you can't mix them, at least not yet. (*) possible, although I don't believe it has been tested. You still need an cygwin, X, build of gtk++ etc... (**) theoretically possible, but I doubt much work has gone into it. These configure options probably don't even compile. Maybe by gtk-3.0 and XEmacs 28.2 ? > I > recall you mentioning it as an example in your HFS thread awhile back. If > so I think this package would definitely benifit many in the emacs camp > (unfortunately I am "vi" person myself ;P). There's already a cygwin package of MicroEmacs avialable in setup-compatible form, IIRC. You have to add a "non-mirror" downloac location to your download list, tho -- check the archives for more info. > Considering the xemacs ppl > aren't on the same page, maybe it is about time we get them on the same > page. I'm sure all that is required is a few friendly inquiries from the > cygwin maintainers... Perhaps not. There's a certain amount of bad blood there...I've got friendly relations on "both sides" -- but I don't want to wade into this particular swamp. A compromise position would be for some aspiring maintainer to provide an "XEmacs-X" package for cygwin, which would be an X-based (GTK-based?) cygwin build of XEmacs. That way, it would not conflict with the xemacs.org version -- until they figure out how to get both (all three?) GUIs to coexist in the same binary, which is probably VERY low priority. Also, a cygwin-X-Xeamcs build would probably not offend Hrvoje, Andy, et al... However, having two different "official" cygwin XEmacsen -- provided by different maintainers -- is again a recipe for trouble, and lots of confused and repetitive questions on BOTH lists... --Chuck -- 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/