Ken Raeburn <raeb...@raeburn.org> writes: > One nagging concern I've got about my Guile-Emacs project is the > seemingly narrow focus of active Guile developers as far as platforms > are concerned. I'm one of, what, two or three people testing the > development versions on Mac OS X now and then, and most of the rest of > the work is on x86 or x86-64 GNU/Linux systems, it seems? But Emacs > works on a lot more systems (including MinGW, for people who don't > want all of Cygwin), and saying "hey, we can change Emacs to be > Guile-based on x86 GNU/Linux systems; too bad about all the other > platforms" wouldn't go over terribly well.
I test on NetBSD, and in theory care about not only i386 and amd64 but also sparc64. But I have not had a lot of spare time lately to hack on guile. I am running autobuilds on list.ir.bbn.com (NetBSD amd64): http://autobuild.josefsson.org/guile/ and it looked like some non-portable assumptions have crept in: http://autobuild.josefsson.org/guile/log-201003220603936147000.txt > For a random Scheme implementation, it's okay to pick the set of > platforms you want to support, and drop whatever's inconvenient. But > if you want to be the official extension language for the GNU project, > used by (theoretically) lots of GNU packages, you've got to support > all the platforms the developers of those platforms want to support, > if you possibly can. I think that includes both Cygwin and MinGW, and > probably not just supporting whatever subset can be mapped into POSIX > functions via Gnulib. We can probably punt on VMS, though.... The target set definitely ought to include cygwin, but the GNU project has a bias for Free and/or POSIX operating systems so I am willing to forgo getting upset about lack of mingw support. But surely we should be happy if someone provides it.
pgpVaC3NEdKKu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
