From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Colin Baxter Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Cleaning out old X11 toolkits? Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2021 08:44:16 +0000 Message-ID: <87blcpn09r.fsf@yandex.com> References: <07D5E64D-DAD0-45B3-B272-627A73D7CBAE@gmail.com> <7308DB2C-27A5-4227-A1F9-9949EE558052@gmail.com> <87sg6alweo.fsf@gnus.org> <87pn1erewq.fsf@gmail.com> <87wnvlecrw.fsf@gnus.org> <83sg69o3av.fsf@gnu.org> <87mtwhctte.fsf@gnus.org> <459A0475-E3E7-4159-82DF-93809CCF1E24@gmail.com> <87eehng52n.fsf@gnus.org> <87mtwbye5b.fsf@gmail.com> <87czx7ycva.fsf@tcd.ie> <87eehmyalr.fsf@gmail.com> <877dneoewi.fsf@tcd.ie> <875z2yy6z7.fsf@gmail.com> <83v9axg3sr.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24967"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: , chad , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Feb 12 09:45:21 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1lAU4m-0006N7-Li for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:45:20 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41334 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lAU4l-0006vI-JZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 03:45:19 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44076) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lAU3w-0006RI-O4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 03:44:28 -0500 Original-Received: from forward100o.mail.yandex.net ([37.140.190.180]:35077) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lAU3t-0004rR-63; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 03:44:28 -0500 Original-Received: from forward100q.mail.yandex.net (forward100q.mail.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c0e:4b:0:640:4012:bb97]) by forward100o.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 09CD64AC329E; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:44:19 +0300 (MSK) Original-Received: from vla1-b5449b1c7de5.qloud-c.yandex.net (vla1-b5449b1c7de5.qloud-c.yandex.net [IPv6:2a02:6b8:c0d:3915:0:640:b544:9b1c]) by forward100q.mail.yandex.net (Yandex) with ESMTP id 05E1C7080002; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:44:19 +0300 (MSK) Original-Received: from vla5-445dc1c4c112.qloud-c.yandex.net (vla5-445dc1c4c112.qloud-c.yandex.net [2a02:6b8:c18:3609:0:640:445d:c1c4]) by vla1-b5449b1c7de5.qloud-c.yandex.net (mxback/Yandex) with ESMTP id k5kHXYNPPY-iIHaN5R8; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:44:19 +0300 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yandex.com; s=mail; t=1613119459; bh=r2Lbd1ENfp64fC31mLostQokqAI+sp6o4GyH98gq7S0=; h=In-Reply-To:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Cc:Cc:Date:References; b=Gc8TXUsDZEQqxmA5ULs5y6pV6/pQWfWTHeFyQTuD1NBwm7CRCQ4BP2O2ETom4fZgl vxkvR6L5SA96SfC0sFuKk5HxxPcrDRQeI9yQs4KVy0i26xR+Ns0QDHkmnj99/scGRJ 70ZeBcx4hXBw7+9PW3NdkI6uhzj5dX/0LyHNVc3g= Authentication-Results: vla1-b5449b1c7de5.qloud-c.yandex.net; dkim=pass header.i=@yandex.com Original-Received: by vla5-445dc1c4c112.qloud-c.yandex.net (smtp/Yandex) with ESMTPSA id ejHPIrTAbV-iHnW0Vfi; Fri, 12 Feb 2021 11:44:17 +0300 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client certificate not present) X-Face: BHjiJOg/Qmj'BQgsAKL@])L)e62P)C"Y=6T In-Reply-To: <83v9axg3sr.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:09:56 +0200") Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAGQAAAAeBAMAAAAodabAAAAAB3RJTUUH1wQdAAY04/L8hgAA AAlwSFlzAAAewQAAHsEBw2lUUwAAAARnQU1BAACxjwv8YQUAAAASUExURc7OzpwAAAAAAP////8A AGNj/2aqqTQAAAA8SURBVHjaYzA2NnEBAmdj01D8wNgYpM7F2JiBgYFREAgEGJiU8AMGBpA6QaCG UVtGbRm1ZdSWUVsGjS0Aq20lJnMawnkAAAAASUVORK5CYII= Received-SPF: pass client-ip=37.140.190.180; envelope-from=m43cap@yandex.com; helo=forward100o.mail.yandex.net X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:264468 Archived-At: >>>>> Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: chad Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2021 14:18:27 >> -0800 Cc: "Basil L. Contovounesios" , Yuan Fu >> , Alan Third , emacs-devel >> , Stefan Monnier , >> Lars Ingebrigtsen , Eli Zaretskii >> >> In more pragmatic terms, I would guess that it's entirely >> possible to excise motif/lesstif, athena, and Xaw3d from main >> without anyone noticing. Whether this is worth the effort in a >> world leaning ever so slowly towards Cairo and pgtk is a little >> hard to tell, but a quick grep through src suggests that it would >> at least clear up a bunch of #ifdef spaghetti. >> >> Would the maintainers be interested in a branch that tried this? >> Would it be better to wait for pgtk to settle first? Is there a >> big use-case for those toolkits of which I'm unaware? > I'm not sure I understand how a branch could help. A branch is > generally used by significantly fewer people than the master > branch. A branch that doesn't bring any new user-visible > features, and just cleans up code, is unlikely to provide > motivation for anyone to try it. So I'm afraid such a branch will > just sit there unused, and will not bring us any closer to a > decision. > I think if we want to move towards removing those toolkits, we > should try a different approach. Two ideas: > . analyze the bug report in debbugs DB, and see how many builds > are with any of these toolkits . look at GNU/Linux distros and see > if they still provide builds with any of these toolkits, and what > was the last version of Emacs when they did > We should also somehow analyze the usage of these toolkits on > other Posix platforms, although I'm not sure I know how -- do they > offer distros similar to GNU/Linux? if so, we could include them > in the 2nd item above. > Once we have an idea about the usage and popularity of each of > these toolkits, we could decide what changes are reasonable, and > make them on master. I would like to put in a plea for the retention of lucid. I build both lucid and GTK versions of emacs. The former consistently loads about a third faster and for text applications, e.g. auctex, I prefer it. I write this knowing that my preferences can be dismissed as personal and anecdotal. Best wishes,