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: .info files Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:13:19 +0300 Message-ID: <83bomrsd68.fsf@gnu.org> References: <838vhz2vnq.fsf@gnu.org> <8362d23ih1.fsf@gnu.org> <87hawmage9.fsf@gnu.org> <83sjg61xp8.fsf@gnu.org> <87d37afwmi.fsf@gnu.org> <83obqu1rir.fsf@gnu.org> <74nsm19c8.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <83d37a18rr.fsf@gnu.org> <11ipgzpo4t.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1334603729 22441 80.91.229.3 (16 Apr 2012 19:15:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:15:29 +0000 (UTC) Cc: cyd@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Apr 16 21:15:28 2012 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 1SJrOU-00046M-Vk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 21:15:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35342 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SJrOU-0001VT-AH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:15:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:49796) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SJrOQ-0001VB-Gd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:15:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SJrOO-0000zJ-Pe for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:15:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout23.012.net.il ([80.179.55.175]:54518) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SJrOK-0000ud-SH; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:15:13 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M2L007006RORJ00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:15:10 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.57.204]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M2L007Q76T8Q440@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:15:10 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <11ipgzpo4t.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.175 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:149699 Archived-At: > From: Glenn Morris > Cc: cyd@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 13:44:50 -0400 > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > We could use "makeinfo --no-split" for all the Info manuals (we do > > that for some now), and then the .info extension wouldn't be a problem > > for MS-DOS. > > To me, it would make sense to ask when 24.1 is released if anyone is > still making serious use of it on MS-DOS, and if so to let emacs-devel > know. config.bat could even print such a question. > > Though, this was done 4 years ago. > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu-emacs/2007-11/msg00000.html > > I don't know how many replied. You could just check the comp.os.msdos.djgpp newsgroup (actually, the signal-to-spam ratio would be lower if you used its mailing list gateway, djgpp@delorie.com). I can tell you that just a week ago someone told me that Emacs 23.4 would not build for him (because some change back-ported from the trunk broke one of DOS-specific files). See http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp/2012/04/08/18:37:56 and also http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp/2012/04/08/18:21:55. > It's an impressive technical achievement to make a modern Emacs work on > MS-DOS, but if literally no-one is using it, it would be nice if the > consequences for the rest of us could be minimized. The one that crops > up most often is file names. Obviously it is not the end of the world, > but it is an annoyance not to be able to name things as one would want. I proposed a solution that should work for everyone. Why not consider it? > If Paul's idea for removing that issue works It doesn't, not for me. If worse comes to worst, I'd prefer to ignore the file-name conflicts altogether, than to use that idea. > I think you would hear fewer gripes about MS-DOS. I seriously doubt that.