From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Laimonas =?UTF-8?Q?V=C4=97bra?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#6705: w32 cmdproxy.c pass args to cygwin; erroneous charset conversion (problem description, solution/suggestion) Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:51:09 +0300 Message-ID: <4C49F2AD.5000804@gmail.com> References: <4C483A30.9010804@gmail.com> <83lj93cn42.fsf@gnu.org> <4C48B11D.4050202@gmail.com> <831vauv6q1.fsf@gnu.org> <4C4991CA.3010103@gmail.com> <83pqyetgeo.fsf@gnu.org> <4C49B6CC.9030509@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1279916215 21885 80.91.229.12 (23 Jul 2010 20:16:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:16:55 +0000 (UTC) To: Juanma Barranquero , 6705@debbugs.gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Jul 23 22:16:53 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcOfs-0000jV-DM for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 22:16:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35602 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OcOXC-0001iD-38 for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:07:54 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38246 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OcOWt-0001NM-Bn for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:07:46 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcOWl-0004Tl-8k for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:07:29 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:49582) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcOWj-0004TR-IB for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 16:07:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcOHq-0006e3-C2; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Laimonas =?UTF-8?Q?V=C4=97bra?= Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-To: owner@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:52:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 6705 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 6705-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B6705.127991468325526 (code B ref 6705); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 19:52:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 6705) by debbugs.gnu.org; 23 Jul 2010 19:51:23 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcOHC-0006df-Kx for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:51:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OcOHB-0006dZ-Kf for 6705@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:51:22 -0400 Original-Received: by ewy22 with SMTP id 22so231068ewy.3 for <6705@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:51:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WmBIS+kift7Cr7liKbBr47HqkJLfAwmptscxx7d3cjQ=; b=GdUx3R0PAUtBtnNuFU3bhHMtyVOzW1apu6akTrmyLen+7Y2mCaRGeSF2M2HEdf1Vpm o53TPGxSfEL9DBDf112PaawwLwtKuotvQG6xsSkULTo89KH8vMI/hU6QXTUOBZcFpMuw kKs8soQyQO8aP5g+R1vU6zmDhuOUz4zB52Z20= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=UWTAzJGhL35enu256nyhsf+ucyG0JfSKZzRmXC0VrAKHqrrLmER11I+s6Z/f8FlZrT uuEKsibIGfDRq5JDFg1hXUv8/HoCqA/9tJ/XmdabLq0Be8xlEUowret8Dcmy4UZFKxvj 5i50Q8ZmrUhJ6hwofUy46/I2Xnq91TcVKxO3E= Original-Received: by 10.213.15.82 with SMTP id j18mr3754726eba.1.1279914678077; Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:51:18 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [84.240.35.136] (lan-84-240-35-136.vln.skynet.lt [84.240.35.136]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a48sm893618eei.7.2010.07.23.12.51.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:51:17 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100504 SeaMonkey/2.0.5 In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Resent-Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:52:02 -0400 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:38848 Archived-At: Juanma Barranquero wrote: > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 17:35, Laimonas Vėbra wrote: > >> bzr log says that much of the active development of the w32proc.c and others >> actually ended somewhere in the 2001-2003... ;-) > > Are you volunteering? By all means, welcome aboard! I'd like to and if you haven't noticed -- i'am trying... ;-) > Because the Cygwin build works pretty well when your environment is > Cygwin. And some of us, to put it mildly, wouldn't touch that crap > again if it were the last working environment on the surface of the > Earth. I certainly don't plan to spend a second making Emacs work > better with Cygwin (tought of course I have nothing against other > people doing it; I'm not an anti-Cygwin zealot). And that is why i also prefer native build of Emacs (and think, that it should be less buggy). I suppose, that making it work better with Cygwin (like other external apps) would just make it better. In the sources there are already much (well, not so little) of the cygwin related stuff, so if it ain't going to be dropped, then why it couldn't/shouldn't be improved? > >> Same question -- why when bother with w32 development at all? > > Seems like there's a sizable user base of non-Cygwin users of Emacs on > Windows. And some of us like to work on Emacs development. That question implied, that it's worth to improve w32.