Re: proposal: require GnuTLS 3.1.x (previous stable)

[Ivan Shmakov <ivan@siamics.net>]

>>>>> Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
>>>>> Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> writes:

 >> Conditionally supporting GnuTLS 2.6.6 is a pain because many
 >> functions were added since then.  It complicates the code
 >> significantly today and for the future, possibly hiding bugs in the
 >> compatibility layers.  We're already starting to see these
 >> compilation issues in the bug tracker and on emacs-devel and it
 >> would be nice to cut the cord now.

 > I think it'll be many years before there is a non-significant number
 > of gnutls 2.x users out there.  The current Debian Stable uses 2.12,

	Yet Jessie is already frozen, so I guess we may see Debian 8
	released in the first half (if not quarter) of 2015.

	Personally, I’d suggest retaining GnuTLS 2 support until a month
	or two after that at the least.

 > and the various LTS versions of the different GNU/Linux distributions
 > will remain on 2.x for a Long Time, I think.

	Yes, although I’d rather question the necessity of building
	Emacs ‘master’ on an LTS GNU/Linux system.  If the intent is to
	use the last decade’s versions of Libc and Coreutils, – why
	Emacs has to be newer than that?

	Especially given that the older versions of the system, when
	necessary to support legacy software, could be just as well be
	run in chroot(2) environments.  (Or even be entirely “virtual.”)

-- 
FSF associate member #7257  http://boycottsystemd.org/  … 3013 B6A0 230E 334A