[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Windows 9X compatibility
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Windows 9X compatibility |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:21:42 +0300 |
> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:39:01 -0600
> From: Christoph <address@hidden>
>
> The need is in my opinion a growing pain in the rear-end to support this
> backwards compatibility.
This argument can only be persuasive if it comes from someone who
personally experienced this pain, which could only be true if they are
active maintainers of the MS-Windows port.
- Re: MS-Windows build broken in Fmake_network_process, (continued)
- Re: MS-Windows build broken in Fmake_network_process, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/03/31
- Re: MS-Windows build broken in Fmake_network_process, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/03/31
- Re: MS-Windows build broken in Fmake_network_process, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/03/31
- Re: MS-Windows build broken in Fmake_network_process, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/03/31
- Re: MS-Windows build broken in Fmake_network_process, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2010/03/31
- Re: MS-Windows build broken in Fmake_network_process, Christoph, 2010/03/27
- Re: Windows 9X compatibility,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Windows 9X compatibility, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/03/28
- Re: Windows 9X compatibility, Lennart Borgman, 2010/03/28
- Re: Windows 9X compatibility, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/03/28
- Re: Windows 9X compatibility, Juanma Barranquero, 2010/03/28
- Re: Windows 9X compatibility, joakim, 2010/03/28
- Re: Windows 9X compatibility, Richard Stallman, 2010/03/29
- Re: Windows 9X compatibility, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/03/28
- Re: Windows 9X compatibility, Eli Zaretskii, 2010/03/28
- Re: Windows 9X compatibility, Juanma Barranquero, 2010/03/28
- Re: Windows 9X compatibility, Christoph, 2010/03/28