From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christoph Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MS-Windows build broken in Fmake_network_process Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:28:13 -0600 Message-ID: <4BAE867D.3030404@gmail.com> References: <83634jglab.fsf@gnu.org> <831vf7ge57.fsf@gnu.org> <83y6hfeyzw.fsf@gnu.org> <83vdcig87f.fsf@gnu.org> <87k4sywpvv.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <83tys2fbxs.fsf@gnu.org> <87hbo1iubm.fsf@home.jasonrumney.net> <83ljddg0w9.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1269729154 25314 80.91.229.12 (27 Mar 2010 22:32:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 22:32:34 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 27 23:32:30 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1NveYM-0005vj-7d for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:32:26 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55127 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NveVK-0005SU-KE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:29:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NveUt-0005Kk-W6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:28:52 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50666 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NveUc-0004Vt-Ir for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:28:50 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NveUN-0000eL-4a for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:28:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pw0-f41.google.com ([209.85.160.41]:36197) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NveUM-0000eC-Vv for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:28:19 -0400 Original-Received: by pwi2 with SMTP id 2so2997508pwi.0 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:28:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.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=LjJ37DlJWpnwS4RjJlTHgJqb4yHs0/twi3C2siTlExQ=; b=dRRtAnkCF99AYZZVaLoH9E2mH4E5L7jBqW9PDqiuIRNvfTM5qn2XSzBLCMxluZDUfI bkw7IDdGSMkCM8Fi0Ophb4EdaGsInLfUcOPfpN1yR5xYGgYCWFrdnsTshayHJNbl84jH udyv/4GZGyqWUkopPxdkqiqYYAo4+OAYcVAhA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=LzgbsgIKp9vu9pMxtKxGvppXZbVJjlQnhXTMFF3yqxV1Hs7sTQIR1hjV3Fq0rI0NQy yGIQcHFwwUeG4vxWSZ6dfdIkSL/uVvimQwYtcfKkTPvgMX86O5YIB7C0jlFWjXwcswhM gZ4K0wtrFKFcyTelVPga4F7KUSNcuD12lvUbU= Original-Received: by 10.140.58.5 with SMTP id g5mr2618386rva.157.1269728897166; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:28:17 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.2] (67-40-151-225.hlrn.qwest.net [67.40.151.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 20sm2180729pzk.11.2010.03.27.15.28.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:28:16 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3 In-Reply-To: <83ljddg0w9.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:122773 Archived-At: On 3/27/2010 10:55 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > How is this not a concern anymore? We didn't stop supporting > Windows 9X, did we? > Microsoft did. Why don't we? Are there plans on dropping support for these ancient OSs instead of kludging backwards compatibility into the system? I looked in the Windows source recently and I by the comments ("On Windows NT...") some of that code it pretty old. Now, that doesn't mean it doesn't work but I am just wondering if the entire Windows API hasn't evolved in areas that we could take advantage of. Also, I think the longer one waits the harder it will be if Micro$oft at some point moves on with its API in a way that breaks compatibility with non-supported OSs (which is basically anything older than Windows 2000 and probably soon to be XP). Just curious, Christoph