DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 delorie.com 55TM3kM22502417 Authentication-Results: delorie.com; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=cygwin.com Authentication-Results: delorie.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cygwin.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 delorie.com 55TM3kM22502417 Authentication-Results: delorie.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=cygwin.com header.i=@cygwin.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=L/PM2xFF X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 7AC713850B31 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com; s=default; t=1751234624; bh=k6+WyupsVTRSmrg+tbsYq4JBSMiSqCHa3OqORn3yiR0=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=L/PM2xFFlWbmTnIx4y4NBC3kgFnP60Ef2adt/k3RIK1rp+JI//ADgXDh15xVOxBBt L5TDqkomNzdlvbhSCrY0uFcMmZK9wNdl6dc24LpnN4d0AHcDo72RomvOTySE7sY/c6 tPOpH5k0MAZzwHRxzxsVycDDvrJHXk8E0ytEL1n4= X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 4E16B385DDF0 ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 4E16B385DDF0 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1751234597; cv=none; b=E5vvoRzbIurIKzMqKdauzetXkeUqJ+zIee6Z+HN+Cu3SBSCS57sEMz5UbaTEydHEC/agsnBCWbgf8PV9vDOzjcu+c4qJsG3htW+Rum5jg61GLmTpR6gACaPkvubb8JLYhjdnC+KaoXc5u3PQOhYGCVPUx281YtxRDr7FEJVlo3c= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1751234597; c=relaxed/simple; bh=97AE5CKKiDSbf6OCxW6W39usLN/eq/WrkqapbNnwSdo=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From; b=c9ttS+KmVFPbS4KBK2yKtBrVR/xUDdoPGv3JX+HX9iVAHxv1AYHjOtwOGr2wvJO0RRquZRmsZOQR5GaiwMF6SSGSViOYWBK9zzXGsvyEI/EqU03r19UXeJyzA9EHxczxZlAfTycXneoIMYrt3Ib8+11SfpBs0Isf9VhNEx5Pvig= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4E16B385DDF0 X-Best-Tracker: cygwin-list25 AT harkless DOT org X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mxwout01.tierra.net Message-ID: <179e452a-b5ac-48fc-8c13-da48498c1bb0@harkless.org> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2025 15:03:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: XEmacs as a Cygwin64 package. To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <6861 DOT 633f DOT 55bc7 DOT 1add AT parhasard DOT net> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Dan Harkless via Cygwin Reply-To: Dan Harkless Cc: Aidan Kehoe Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: cygwin-bounces~archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com Sender: "Cygwin" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id 55TM3kM22502417 On 6/29/2025 9:43 AM, Eliot Moss wrote: > On 6/29/2025 12:01 PM, Aidan Kehoe via Cygwin wrote: >> >> Dear Cygwin, >> >> I am the maintainer of XEmacs; I have recently made a beta release >> and that >> beta release has no complication or exection problems that are >> specifically >> related to 64-bit Cygwin. >> >> Dan Harkless advises me that there is no current 64-bit Cygwin XEmacs >> package >> and that a 32-bit Cygwin XEmacs package remains available. Is there >> someone >> who might be interested in maintaining a 64-bit Cygwin XEmacs? If >> not, I am >> happy to take that on. > > Dear Aidan - Would you *prefer* to do it yourself, or be at least as > happy > if someone else takes it on? > > Is there a current maintainer for 32-bit XEmacs?  That person might be > logical to support 64-bit as well. To be clear, "32-bit" was a modifier to "Cygwin", not to "XEmacs".  There are no more 32-bit Cygwin maintainers, because it's been discontinued, no?  That being said, I downloaded the Cygwin list archives so I could find the last time I asked about this on the list.  It was in 2021, after the xemacs package for 64-bit Cygwin had been dropped, but before support for 32-bit Cygwin ended (the following year).  Reportedly, XEmacs was having build problems on 64-bit Cygwin.  When I asked for more info on that, here's the response that was sent:     From: Henry S. Thompson     Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2021 09:47:10 +0100     Subject: [HEADSUP] Phasing out old Windows versions and 32 bit support      [XEmacs for 64-bit?]     In-Reply-To: (Dan Harkless      via Cygwin's message of "Wed\, 27 Oct 2021 15\:36\:45 -0700")     References:          Message-ID:     Dan Harkless via Cygwin writes:     > ...     > Anyone know more about the difficulty in getting those packages to     > work on 64-bit?     Um, yes, I did a lot of work on that back in 2015 and got it working     under Cygwin, with a lot of help from Vin Shelton, but never to the     point of public release because it _only_ compiled with gcc, not with     native Windows C tool chain.     I still use it every day, it crashes about once a week.  Given the     demise of 32-bit, I'll try to get back to it some time in the next few     months, but there's other stuff in the queue ahead of that...     ht     --            Henry S. Thompson, School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh Untarring the most recent XEmacs package for 32-bit Cygwin, I see that its maintainer as of 2015-04-23 was not Henry or Vin, but Dr. Volker Zell from Oracle. > On a somewhat different tack: Is XEmacs now being more actively > developed? > Web commentary from four years ago suggested that its development pretty > much stopped ...  [Note: Certainly not intending to step into the middle > of any contention about Emacs vs XEmacs!] > > Regards - Eliot Moss I'll let Aidan respond as to what the current outlook is, but there was a beta version of XEmacs 21.5 released in 2023, and then another beta this month.  Per the release notes:     http://xemacs.org/Releases/21.5.36.html Kurt Geisel got it compiling again under Visual Studio.  I didn't personally try compiling it with a Microsoft toolchain; I'd forgotten that it wasn't gcc compilation that was at issue.  The successful build I tried was with the native Cygwin 64-bit toolchain. Thanks. -- Dan Harkless https://harkless.org/dan/ -- Problem reports: https://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: https://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: https://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple