Re: GnuTLS for W32

[Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>]

2012/1/2 Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com>:

> I stated I would do that monitoring.  In any case, it's better to have
> the *ability* to issue updates than not to.

We already have the ability to issue updates, because any update is
just getting the info to the user (whether they download a binary
tarball from us or somewhere else, the only real trouble is getting
the user to know that there's a security issue to be fixed in the
first place). In that regard, announcing a new release or announcing
that the user should upgrade their GnuTLS binary is largely
irrelevant.

But anyway, the issue is not just monitoring. Someone has to build
updated binary GnuTLS packages for Windows. That Eli just did it does
not mean we can burden him with the task forever.

> In that context, it seems
> more sensible to package GnuTLS support as an ELPA package so it can be
> upgraded without upgrading Emacs as a whole.  So perhaps we just need a
> versioned "gnutls-w32" ELPA package to DTRT.  W32 users can choose to
> install it or it can be installed by default, whichever we or the
> distribution decides.

I think my objections regarding the burden we heap upon ourselves are
equally valid (or not) for an ELPA package, with the only mitigating
factor that at least in that case a security upgrade does not force a
reissue of Emacs tarballs.

> I'd guess we have at least 100 W32 users.

Worldwide? ;-)

> That number will certainly
> grow if Emacs can offer better foolproof connectivity.  If you ever
> tried to set up CLI helpers for W32 Emacs network connectivity before
> GnuTLS came along, you know it was a big deterrent to adoption.

I suppose you're talking of corporate environments or the like. I
still find hard to believe that's a representative sample of Windows
users.

    Juanma