From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: MS-Windows build broken in Fmake_network_process Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:39:56 +0200 Message-ID: References: <83634jglab.fsf@gnu.org> <83ljddg0w9.fsf@gnu.org> <4BAE867D.3030404@gmail.com> <4BAE9ED4.6070900@t-online.de> <87tys12sdy.fsf@telefonica.net> <87y6h9rsuc.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <83bpe4zy13.fsf@gnu.org> <87k4sssdoo.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1270054262 3147 80.91.229.12 (31 Mar 2010 16:51:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:51:02 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 31 18:50:57 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 1Nx184-00041d-Df for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 18:50:56 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52620 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nx184-0006Qb-06 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:50:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nx0xo-0005n8-K9 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:40:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45350 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nx0xn-0005jH-3r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:40:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nx0xl-0004Ex-FS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:40:18 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-bw0-f219.google.com ([209.85.218.219]:56857) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nx0xl-0004Eq-AS; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 12:40:17 -0400 Original-Received: by bwz19 with SMTP id 19so95523bwz.26 for ; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:40:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :from:date:received:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rHwgzKRV8vyM9KopHiigzkaQHD92VYKhHUiRm/4IAtA=; b=qafMJ57efGwYoz05ci4lHs+IHj8H3NdVb68uShMcc40IucC1ou1XnF6OOQQTy3qC2W Jq8gktfZXMXx0e2qrJck6SENLrhtiX1W8dXYgP0OF1+moy6la7lDEJJd/6utakl5USQk dmTzW5gE3jZU+2gZEL1aK9liV1uXDYRO/7dhc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Z0D/l1fjcszCe2llMRvukQ6V2COWmAHwqYpwXd5TuNhh6/OMhBiVRSW+Izk4LomLp+ lvQktLEG34eF+iF4mXvtMLccjbjzFjyX4F4c2IYyyUyQ31s6DxOXcrCQuTDE0yKXgVAA 2CPdPK9x1Ubi1bb5L6KAiXpMtI13iHvrX3pTw= Original-Received: by 10.204.156.9 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:39:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87k4sssdoo.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Original-Received: by 10.204.45.207 with SMTP id g15mr2279782bkf.210.1270053616187; Wed, 31 Mar 2010 09:40:16 -0700 (PDT) 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:122982 Archived-At: On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 17:39, Stephen J. Turnbull wro= te: > C'mon, Juanma, don't egg him on. =C2=A0It's not about POSIX vs. non-POSIX= , > it's about free vs. non-free, which is long-standing Emacs policy (not > to mention the whole purpose for GNU in the first place). I don't hear as much complaining about the Mac support... > [...] the costs, which are > non-zero (though IMO they're nowhere near as big as the anti-Windows > activists would have it). That's exactly what my comment implied. Juanma