>>>> "cgw" == Charles G Waldman
cgw> Ben Wing wrote:
> Windows Installer:
> 1.It must be tested and shown to work on all of Windows 95, Windows
> 98, NT 3.5, NT 4.0. If it absolutely will not work on NT 3.51, this
> must be noted when you run the installer.
cgw> I have access to Win95, 98 and NT4.0. I routinely test the installer
cgw> on all of these. I do not have access to NT3.51, so I have no way to
cgw> test. It seems pretty clear from the reports coming in that it simply
cgw> won't work on 3.51. I will add an OS-version check to the installer
cgw> and bail out if OS == NT && version < 4.0, unless somebody can tell
cgw> me what needs to be done to make it work on WinNT.
I imagine that most of the problems with NT 3.5.1 have to do with
unexec. I imagine that most of these are fixable if someone has
access to 3.5.1, because winemacs used basically the same unexec
mechanism and DID run on NT 3.51. However, I don't think this is
important enough to hold up the release if it doesn't get dealt with.
> 2.The installer should be mentioned in the same place as the
> binary distributions, and its operation needs to be documented
> somewhere on the XEmacs web site in addtion to being mentioned in
> the INSTALL file.
> 3.This installer needs to be available on the ftp site in the
> place as the other binary distributions.
cgw> I have stuck the installer in my personal little bit of web-space, but
cgw> have always hoped that somebody would pick it up and put it on the
cgw> main XEmacs site.
> Subprocesses on Windows:
> 1.Must work at least somewhat (as well as possible) on Win95 and Win98.
> 2.What works and what doesn't should be clearly documented.
cgw> I submitted a patch that fixed a bunch of the Win95/98 subprocess
cgw> brokenness, but it was rejected for (at least) two reasons: (A)it was
cgw> a bit kludgey, and (B) there is some disagreement about the need for
cgw> "cmdproxy" and the ability of the existing XEmacs subprocess code to
cgw> spawn 16-bit subprocesses.
cgw> The kludge was there because I didn't understand why the variable
cgw> "win32_quote_process_args" didn't work as advertised, and I
cgw> another variable to do the same thing. The problem was
cgw> "vars_of_ntproc" not getting called from emacs.c.
cgw> On the other issue, I am fairly certain that "cmdproxy" is *not*
cgw> necessary; "command.com" should do just fine. "ntproc.c"
cgw> whether the process being spawned is "16-bit" (if it has the
cgw> extension it is considered 16-bit) and if so uses cmdproxy to spawn
cgw> it. However when I simply took this piece of code out I found that
cgw> XEmacs can apparently spawn "command.com" just fine.
cgw> It's perhaps a bit confusing to follow the code, the "spawnve" that
cgw> called at line 734 in "callproc.c" is *not* the Win32 spawnve
cgw> function, but the spawnve function in "ntproc.c", which is capable of
cgw> spawning a 16-bit subprocess. (Try it and see....)
cgw> Anyhow, I'm glad you consider the broken subprocesses on 95/98 as a
cgw> problem worth fixing.
cgw> I will clean up my rejected patch to make it less kludgey and resubmit
cgw> it; maybe it can still make it into 21.0.
Please, please, please do resubmit your patch. It simply must go into
21.0. Better something kludgy than something that doesn't work at all.
> Package System:
> Sumo Distribution:
> 1.Complete, well-defined, well-tested and properly integrated.
cgw> I'll leave these to somebody else!
Ben (typed by Martin)