RE: Emacs 24.0.93 Pretest Windows Binaries published

["Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com>]

> DA> The readme is the only place we mention other Windows 
> DA> binaries - e.g. image binaries.  Why treat GnuTLS specially?  
> DA> Either mention GnuTLS only in the readme (preferred)
> DA> or mention in the announcement each of the binaries
> DA> that mentioned in the readme (not preferred).
> 
> I requested that GnuTLS be treated specially.  I believe this is
> necessary because it's important for secure networking on W32, unlike
> any of the other libraries.  This is a temporary remedy; I 
> will work on a W32 installer and then it won't be necessary
> to mention GnuTLS explicitly (a link to the installer in the
> announcement would be sufficient).

1. According to Eli, "It's an email authentication package."  Which would mean
that it is needed only by people who use Emacs for email.

At a minimum, that should be pointed out in the brief description that needs to
accompany this "special treatment".

And that's the case wherever we choose to describe GnuTLS.  (And it should be
described in the README, irregardless of whether it is described in the
announcement.)

(FWIW, I expect that most Windows users do not and will not use Emacs for
email.)


2. I'm not familiar with your proposed "installer", but I certainly hope that we
will continue to distribute a simple zip archive with a Windows binary.

A priori, I for one will not use an installer to "install" the binary.  I use
multiple Emacs Windows binaries, and I do not need an Emacs installer mucking
about with my registry etc.  This is one reason I do not use Lennart's
installer, for instance.

It is blindingly simple for a user to unzip an archive in a directory of choice,
and create a startup shortcut.  Nothing to it.

What's the motivation for this installer?  I can understand Lennart's
motivation, since he has apparently customized many things, including at the C
level.  But why do you think Emacs users on Windows need an installer for
vanilla Emacs?

I have nothing against the general idea of our providing an installer in
_addition_ to our providing zip archives, but I would not want to see the latter
practice dropped.