From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: GnuTLS for W32 Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:37:18 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87ty4b4329.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87fwfxtxuz.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87aa64ubg9.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83boqkr9bp.fsf@gnu.org> <874nwcu17i.fsf@wanadoo.es> <834nwcr6un.fsf@gnu.org> <87vcosskhc.fsf@wanadoo.es> <831urgr2yr.fsf@gnu.org> <87r4zgsh2w.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87ipks3zbo.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87boqk3q69.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87aa634st8.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <87fwfvsgfv.fsf@wanadoo.es> <877h17scdo.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87hb0b77nr.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8739bvs27m.fsf@wanadoo.es> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1325709464 839 80.91.229.12 (4 Jan 2012 20:37:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 20:37:44 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jan 04 21:37:40 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RiXae-0007pl-01 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:37:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47683 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiXad-0001nX-BQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:37:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:40739) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiXaa-0001nG-Jm for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:37:37 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiXaY-0005IC-T8 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:37:36 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:39802) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RiXaY-0005Hz-JA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:37:34 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RiXaU-0007kz-GH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:37:30 +0100 Original-Received: from c-76-28-40-19.hsd1.vt.comcast.net ([76.28.40.19]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:37:30 +0100 Original-Received: from tzz by c-76-28-40-19.hsd1.vt.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:37:30 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 35 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-76-28-40-19.hsd1.vt.comcast.net X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:3CHGvpYRW6V4wXNVa3xIO/TiBu4= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 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:147292 Archived-At: On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:21:49 +0100 Óscar Fuentes wrote: ÓF> Ted Zlatanov writes: ÓF> Sharing the gnutls dll is so wrong at some many levels that I wont ÓF> start discussing it. >> >> I am puzzled by this. Why is it wrong to share the GnuTLS DLL? ÓF> This is a common scenario on MS Windows: multiple providers of binary ÓF> packages, multiple installers with different install policies even for ÓF> the same installer, lots of directories on PATH (each application lives ÓF> on its own directory and often wants to be listed on PATH), varying ÓF> policies about where a non-privileged user is allowed to put binaries, ÓF> multiple incompatible binary macropackages that provides the same ÓF> executables and libraries with the same names (Cygwin, MSYS, GnuWin32 ÓF> and what-not), a lack of culture of system administration, a growing ÓF> tendency to rely on self-updating packages... and the list goes on. OK, thanks for explaining. I'm not convinced it's *better for the user* that we use ELPA to deliver the DLL, but it seems like a pain to make a non-Emacs solution work reliably, so we're better off making our solution only for Emacs. How unfortunate. ÓF> For a Windows binary package to be robust, it must be as self-contained ÓF> as possible. Quality-wise, one of the best decisions I ever made was to ÓF> distribute the C/C++ MS runtime dlls along with the rest of my binaries, ÓF> no matter they are already installed on virtually all MS Windows ÓF> machines. Certain long-standing, very nasty bugs simply went away. I see. So, assuming we agree on the ELPA package approach, maybe we should ship W32 Emacs with a gnutls-w32 package and the DLL and all the load paths set up already, so it can self-update and it works by default. Ted