For what it's worth, I use what I _think_ Paul refers to as the
`native XP version of Emacs', cygwin (but not the Emacs cygwin
version) and JDEE very successfully.

The only thing I haven't yet got to work is the ClearCase module,
which is a separate issue.

To clarify, I use the binary dist by the GNU folks at:

  ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/emacs/windows/emacs-21.3-fullbin-i386.tar.gz

However, this an earlier bug release (21.3.1).  For this reason, there
are many who like this lesser known (but reputable) distribution:

  http://sourceforge.net/projects/nqmacs



Paul Kinnucan writes:
 > Chris McMahan writes:
 >  > 
 >  > Cygwin has a version of emacs available that will run in console when
 >  > running the XP window manager, or run in GUI under an X environment
 >  > (which also comes with Cygwin). Whether GUI or console, the issues
 >  > with path interactions with XP remain.
 >  > 
 >  > The native XP version of Emacs does not need Cygwin to run, but it is
 >  > very helpful to have it installed. This provides the use of various
 >  > tools such as grep, ls, find and such that makes Emacs a happy camper
 >  > to play with.
 > 
 > I use the native XP version of Emacs with the Cygwin tools. This is 
 > the setup that I would recommend to other JDEE users for the following
 > reason. Both the native XP version of Emacs and the Cygwin tools understand
 > Windows paths. The Cygin version of Emacs on the other hand does not
 > understand Windows paths. This complicates the JDEE's handling of paths.
 > 
 > 
 > Paul 
 > 
 > 
 >  > 
 >  > I hope this helps a little to clarify.
 >  > 
 >  > - Chris McMahan
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > Paul Kinnucan writes:
 >  > >Ed Mooney writes:
 >  > > > Now I'm confused. Is the version of emacs[1] you can install by 
 > running 
 >  > > > http://cygwin.com/setup.exe "A" or "B"? I had thought it was "A". If 
 >  > > > not, where can I get "A"?
 >  > >
 >  > >Hi Ed,
 >  > >
 >  > >I thought A was still available. My knowledge is very hazy
 >  > >on cygwin as my own dealings with it were only to test out
 >  > >changes to the JDEE intended to support it. Perhaps B
 >  > >replaced A. Anyway, I believe A was developed before Cygwin
 >  > >supported X Windows and thus included source changes to use
 >  > >the native Windows GUI. I believe B was made possible by the
 >  > >porting of X Windows to Cygwin. This enables Cygwin to
 >  > >support a binary compiled directly from the Unix sources for
 >  > >Emacs, without any Windows-specific modifications. I don't
 >  > >know if the JDEE takes advantage of any A modifications that
 >  > >are missing from the B version. It would help if anyone can
 >  > >shed any light on this question as this would enable me to
 >  > >determine how much work would be needed to enhance the JDEE
 >  > >to support the B version.
 >  > >
 >  > >Paul
 >  > >
 >  > >
 >  > > > 
 >  > > >    -- Ed
 >  > > > 
 >  > > > [1] E.g.: http://mirrors.rcn.net/pub/sourceware/cygwin/release/emacs/
 >  > > > 
 >  > > > Jason Rumney wrote:
 >  > > > > Paul Kinnucan wrote:
 >  > > > > 
 >  > > > >> Hi Felix,
 >  > > > >>
 >  > > > >> As I understand it, there are two versions of "cygwin emacs":
 >  > > > >>
 >  > > > >>  (A) a version of Unix Emacs modified specifically to run in the   
 >    
 >  > > > >> Cygwin environment and
 >  > > > >>  (B) the standard Unix version of Emacs compiled, using cygwin
 >  > > > >>      gcc, to run in the Cygwin environment
 >  > > > >>
 >  > > > >>
 >  > > > >> JDEE supports the A version. It does not support the B
 >  > > > >> version.  The reason for this is that years ago, long
 >  > > > >> before the B-version existed, some JDEE users asked for A
 >  > > > >> version support and some of those users actually contributed
 >  > > > >> code necessary to support the A version. Meanwhile, until
 >  > > > >> now, there has been no demand for B-version support.
 >  > > > >>  
 >  > > > >>
 >  > > > > Really this is a cygwin problem. A cygwin version of Emacs needs to 
 > be 
 >  > > > > modified to fit its environment, as the 'A' version was. I'm not 
 > sure 
 >  > > > > what happened to those patches, but it is unreasonable of the 
 > Cygwin 
 >  > > > > maintainers to expect the maintainers of every other package to 
 > make 
 >  > > > > changes to accomodate Cygwin's lack of fitting in with its 
 > environment 
 >  > > > > so that they themselves can use unmodified code targetted at 
 > GNU/Linux.
 >  > > > > 
 >  > > > > 
 >  > > > 
 >  > 
 >  > -- 
 >  >     ================================
 >  >     Chris McMahan | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 >  >     ================================
 >  > 
 > 


-- 
Paul Landes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to