From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: peder@news.klingenberg.no (Peder O. Klingenberg) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: proposal: require GnuTLS 3.1.x (previous stable) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:12:44 +0100 Organization: Persons in a Position to Know, inc. Message-ID: References: <87389762xj.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <87h9xnqfdl.fsf@violet.siamics.net> <87mw7eaz2w.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1417011215 15733 80.91.229.3 (26 Nov 2014 14:13:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:13:35 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 26 15:13:29 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XtdLU-00034h-Nz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:13:28 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:34078 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtdLU-00020Y-0w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:13:28 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45512) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtdL6-0001y5-Tm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:13:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtdKz-0000EP-92 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:13:04 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:59442) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtdKz-0000EI-2q for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 09:12:57 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XtdKy-0002fh-8F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:12:56 +0100 Original-Received: from luna.netfonds.no ([80.91.225.79]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:12:56 +0100 Original-Received: from peder by luna.netfonds.no with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:12:56 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 33 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: luna.netfonds.no User-Agent: Gnus/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:hCPg2vLDQZvgdhWSQrjRFJ1p+j4= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 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:178300 Archived-At: On Wed, Nov 26 2014 at 08:08, Ted Zlatanov wrote: > Peder, your whole argument could have applied to supporting GnuTLS 1.x > back when we added support for 2.x the first time, because people still > used it and didn't want to upgrade their system. Inertia is not a bad > thing, but we're talking about the master branch of The Most Advanced > Editor Ever Invented(TM). Sacrifices must be made :) I'm not arguing against requiring a newer GnuTLS. Far from it. I have no deep opinions on the subject. Please don't read any such resistance into anything I wrote. Ivan asked why anyone would build master on an old system. I merely offered my rationalisations for doing so. > I'm sure we can argue about this for a while, but I personally would > just like to set a cutover date where GnuTLS 2.x is not supported, not > debate convenience and featuritis. How about Emacs 26? No need to argue with me, at least. The maintenance burden for supporting older libraries is obvious. A cutover date of "tomorrow" would be fine by me. For my part, I'm fairly confident that I'll be able to aquire the required version of GnuTLS, should my distribution not supply it. That is a burden I accept by running my system as I do. If it turns out I'm wrong, and compiling GnuTLS causes problems, then that will be a reason to upgrade my distribution. ...Peder... -- I wish a new life awaited _me_ in some off-world colony.