Re: RE : Re: Files from gnulib

[Jim Meyering]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:20:48 +0100
>> From: Bastien ROUCARIES <address@hidden>
>> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
>>      Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
>>
>> Btw does doslfn not available these days?
>
> It can be downloaded (although unmaintained since 2006), but I don't
> know whether it can be a viable solution.  It was never widely used
> with DJGPP, so its compatibility with the Long File Name (LFN)
> functions used by DJGPP is unknown.  DJGPP implementation of the
> Standard C library assumes that any LFN support implements the full
> range of LFN functions that Windows 9X provided.  There isn't a single
> LFN function that is not used by some library function in DJGPP.
>
> If someone wants LFN support nowadays, they can easily enough install
> Windows (where DJGPP programs can run and support long file names).
> Which may explain why doslfn is not used too much.
>
> So I'd rather not request users to install doslfn.  None of the other
> DJGPP ports requires LFN as a prerequisite for building it, so doing
> so for Emacs sounds like a bad idea to me, when the alternative is to
> rename a few files.

Forcing current and future emacs development into the archaic 8.3 mold has
a significant cost (just look at how long this thread is), yet provides
relatively little benefit.  If something like doslfn is reliable enough
and not hard to install, then requiring it makes sense: then all emacs
developers will be freed of this onerous file-naming constraint.

This is like various shims we've used over the years. (remember ansi2knr?)
Imposing small relatively transparent requirements on users of less common
systems is actually a good practice, when doing so permits improvements
in the development process.