From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Win32 GnuTLS DLL installer? Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 19:58:21 +0300 Message-ID: <83fubgdm4y.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87lgl9e4ji.fsf@lifelogs.com> <5e2a6b84f4051ba2d4d427200045c947.squirrel@cloud103.planethippo.com> <8760ccdt3g.fsf@lifelogs.com> <83mv5ods3n.fsf@gnu.org> <87zi9ocbae.fsf@lifelogs.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1506013814 24739 195.159.176.226 (21 Sep 2017 17:10:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 17:10:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ted Zlatanov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Sep 21 19:10:11 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dv4zG-0005y0-OQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 19:10:06 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54768 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dv4zO-00024L-3F for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 13:10:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37912) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dv4o5-0001Dg-H6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:58:34 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dv4o2-0007M7-TB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:58:33 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:38327) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dv4o2-0007Lx-PB; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:58:30 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:2864 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1dv4o1-0004iL-UL; Thu, 21 Sep 2017 12:58:30 -0400 In-reply-to: <87zi9ocbae.fsf@lifelogs.com> (message from Ted Zlatanov on Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:38:01 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:218637 Archived-At: > From: Ted Zlatanov > Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:38:01 -0400 > > EZ> How do you define "outdated"? GnuTLS developers maintain 3 branches > EZ> in parallel, and release versions from all the 3 branches. Which one > EZ> should we follow, and does any N+1 release from that branch mean that > EZ> the N release is considered "outdated" and should be replaced? > > That's usually the platform's responsibility, but in this case it seems > up to us. I would keep up with the current branch (whatever was > installed already) at least, on the principle of least surprise. So whenever the current branch sees a new release, someone would have to port it to Windows and provide the binaries? > EZ> Moreover, accommodating a new version of GnuTLS might mean changes to > EZ> Emacs C and/or Lisp sources -- are we going to release patches to > EZ> the core sources through ELPA or something? > > Theoretically the current branch will not require that. Theoretically, yes. In practice, this can and did happen. > I would just post a non-intrusive message to the user for now. Not sure how a message could help with source-level changes. People who track the Git repository normally don't keep local patches. People who use official releases don't even have the sources in most cases. > EZ> IOW, this sounds like a major undertaking on our part, and I'm sure > EZ> more and more issues will pop up as we consider the implications. I'm > EZ> not sure we want to become a de-facto "distro" for MS-Windows users, > EZ> as I don't think we have the resources, even if we have the desire. > > Agreed, I wasn't suggesting all of that. It does seem like a general > Emacs update process may be more appropriate, like Cygwin does, but > simple messaging is a lot easier and less risky. Again, I'm not sure I see how a message would help. And Cygwin does produce packages as GNU/Linux distribution do, something I don't think we should take upon ourselves.