Re: GnuTLS for W32

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Ted Zlatanov <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 11:16:34 -0500
> 
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2012 05:02:45 +0100 Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden> wrote: 
> 
> JB> If we start distributing GnuTLS binaries, it's suddenly our (=
> JB> "someone's") work to know when a release fixes serious bugs and when
> JB> it does not.
> 
> I stated I would do that monitoring.

Yes, thanks.

> In any case, it's better to have the *ability* to issue updates than
> not to.  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.

It makes sense, but how is ELPA easier than any other download
address?  All that's needed is to download a single zip archive and
unzip it.  Why does it matter if it comes from ELPA or from elsewhere?

>  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.

The w32 "distribution" is just a single zip file which you unzip
wherever you want it, and add the bin subdirectory to PATH.  A zip
file cannot "decide" anything.

The alternatives are:

 . have GnuTLS as part of the binary zip

 . have GnuTLS as a separate zip alongside the binary zip (we do this
   for libxpm)

 . have GnuTLS available for download from some other address