From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: "Official" binary of Emacs-24.4 for MS-Windows Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:11:41 +0300 Message-ID: <834mus601u.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83tx2t5uo9.fsf@gnu.org> <83siid5qgj.fsf@gnu.org> <83mw8l5kr9.fsf@gnu.org> <83d29g64u4.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1414224751 4149 80.91.229.3 (25 Oct 2014 08:12:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 08:12:31 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dani Moncayo Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 25 10:12:23 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XhwSU-00078M-Pv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:12:22 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52477 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhwSU-0006wD-9b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 04:12:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58084) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhwSC-0006w7-OV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 04:12:10 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhwS6-0003aS-Mb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 04:12:04 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout27.012.net.il ([80.179.55.183]:33546) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XhwS6-0003a5-9p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 04:11:58 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout27.012.net.il by mtaout27.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NDZ00500Q7RDZ00@mtaout27.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:06:55 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout27.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NDZ00LICQJIRW80@mtaout27.012.net.il>; Sat, 25 Oct 2014 11:06:55 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.183 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:175814 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:00:23 +0200 > From: Dani Moncayo > Cc: Emacs development discussions > > > I don't object to not compressing the files, if compressing them > > causes trouble on some systems. > > This system is Windows 8.1 64-bit, and, according to what you said: > > >> I don't see a reason not to compress files. Emacs can display and use > >> them just fine, even if gzip.exe is not installed/available, right? > > not being able to show the manual (nor visiting .gz files -- I've just > tried) seemed like a bug. It this expected (when gzip.exe is not > available) or should I report this as a bug? It's probably a missing feature, since we have zlib-decompress-region now. I misremembered: we still need gzip to display compressed files. > Regarding the format of the binary archive, there are several options: > > Format Archive Size > zip 50 MB > tar.gz 50 MB > tar.xz 32 MB > 7z 31 MB > > As you see, the last two formats produce an archive considerably > smaller. Which format should I choose? IMO, you should use zip, because unpacking it does not require any external tools to be installed on Windows. The large size of the archive is unfortunate, but asking users to install additional programs is IMO worse. > Regarding the name of the binary archive, the convention so far has > been "emacs-VERSION-bin-i386". But if I eval `system-configuration' > from that Emacs I get `i686-pc-mingw32'. So, perhaps we should name > the archive as "emacs-24.4-bin-i686", or (even better IMO), > "emacs-24.4-bin(i686-pc-mingw32)". I like the latter format, because > it is a general and compact way of telling not only the hardware > architecture, but also OS flavor it was built for. It is quite > self-explanatory. > > But of course the choice is yours. Which filename should I choose? I prefer emacs-24.4-i686-pc-mingw32-bin.zip. I don't like parentheses in the file names, because they are special to some shells. > And finally, note that I haven't got an answer yet to the request I > sent 2 days ago (to ftp-upload@gnu.org) for ftp upload rights. So I > still can't upload anything. (I could send the archive to anyone with > proper upload right...) I hope Glenn will be able to help here, I have no experience with uploading to GNU FTP sites.