Re: GnuTLS for W32

[Richard Riley <rileyrg@gmail.com>]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> Richard Riley writes:
>  > Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com> writes:
>
>  > > The GnuTLS binary is *not* an "Emacs component".
>  > 
>  > Silly word play.
>
> Not at all.  It's an admirably precise statement of Juanma's opinion,
> and it corresponds to what I believe to be the project's policy on
> such things.

It is word play when everyone knows its not an emacs developed
component. The whole point is whether to ship this external
components. Had you not snipped, my point would clearer.

Ted said:

,----
| > I can't think of a better way to
| > notify them that an Emacs component is out of date and possibly
| > compromising their security.
`----

and the reply was

,----
| The GnuTLS binary is *not* an "Emacs component".
`----

It was quite clear in the context what was meant by "emacs component" :
a component which contributes to a working and complete emacs
installation.


>
>  > It's a required component for Emacs in the context of this
>  > discussion.
>
> Of course it's not.  Nothing related to Windows can be required of
> Emacs, only permitted given the needed volunteers.
>

More word play. Sorry. Clearly no one thinks its an emacs component per
se : but IS a component required by emacs on windows for certain subsets
of emacs users. Its why this thread is taking place. Its not unique to
emacs to have to or want to ship a support 3rd party element in order to
facilitate installation. The location etc has been covered elsewhere.

I dont want to bicker and be petty but felt Ted was getting a bit of a
hard time for merely wanting to make things better for the end user and,
more importantly, the new adopter.