From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Juanma Barranquero Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: bug#10612: GnuTLS bundled with the windows Emacs binaries Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:26:57 +0100 Message-ID: References: <84boromyob.fsf@tum.de> <84ipknew07.fsf@tum.de> <87ipjzs512.fsf@gnus.org> <87wr8e8o58.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <4F256D1E.4070902@gmail.com> <4F257D1F.5050105@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1327858069 24381 80.91.229.3 (29 Jan 2012 17:27:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:27:49 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Ted Zlatanov , Eli Zaretskii , Emacs-Devel devel To: Christoph Scholtes Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 29 18:27:47 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RrYXY-0004fb-MB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:27:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38131 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RrYXY-0002os-3V for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:27:44 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:55888) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RrYXV-0002oc-9A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:27:42 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RrYXU-0004AH-Cj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:27:41 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pz0-f41.google.com ([209.85.210.41]:39994) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RrYXT-00049l-0h; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:27:39 -0500 Original-Received: by dake40 with SMTP id e40so3135909dak.0 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:27:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RRHHgD5rwlY8S5z2zR9hec3L8kA33JVROefo5KrMjls=; b=NNBxJE/fZ3ppf3JV2my9QIawQ0+3iPVmeMjgjhmUxmvCOIpxFbZ32MdwgOO7p7p3Yg Y9EiKem+IDQVkIbiwG+RtEcZbWkEacDFLS7uaXhO95Dtm7H6ZLMZgyHASAgntTKrJm6D kia0aRwucVy7mWHn60oPEosildMN7QKaJ7Wmo= Original-Received: by 10.68.75.199 with SMTP id e7mr34289221pbw.128.1327858057153; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:27:37 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.143.37.9 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:26:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F257D1F.5050105@gmail.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 209.85.210.41 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:148012 Archived-At: On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 18:08, Christoph Scholtes wrote: > Why is that? Because the number of Windows machines with a compiler and a build environment is almost zero, and though they are available (and free) the average Windows users knows nothing about them and wouldn't know how to (or be interested in) install and use them. It's been said a few times here, by RMS and others, than providing Emacs for Windows (binary or not) is intended to be a bridgehead to introduce users of non-free software to the advantages of free software (not to facilitate them using Windows). If we didn't offer binaries for Windows, almost nobody would use it. It's politically convenient to provide them. > I agree, but doesn't that also start with compiling support for GnuTLS in= to > the prebuilt Emacs? No. That's just an enabler. Whether they use it or not is their decision, and they should be aware of the risks and benefits before doing it. > If there is a security update for GnuTLS that requires the user to use t= he > latest certain version, don't we have to provide support for the latest > version in the binary? Yes, but bugs that force a change in the API are less frequent. Of course as soon as we add some capability we expose the user to security risks (23.4 wouldn't be needed without EDE). We have to put the line at some point. And, in any case, bearing the responsibility of the upgrades isn't my main objection, and never has, just another inconvenience. The main argument is still that GnuTLS, etc. have their own projects and maintainers, and they should be the ones taking care of building and distributing it. =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Juanma