Re: GnuTLS for W32

[Óscar Fuentes]

Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden> writes:

> On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 00:00, Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> It took me
>> months to discover the problem for one of the users: a mass storage
>> device driver and accompanying backup utility installed their own
>> custom-modified MSVCRT.DLL on system32, which somehow caused my app to
>> freeze when certain gui action was performed. They didn't bothered to
>> use a different version string or id on the resources of the library, so
>> it reported itself as one of the "good" dlls.
>
> That just means that someone should be hit in the head with a printed
> copy of the full MSDN site. Repeatedly.

It *also* means that depending on unknown third parties is asking for
trouble.

>> Then I started to put my
>> runtime dlls on the same directory as the rest of my binaries, and the
>> problems of those users disappeared.
>
> Wonderful. But GnuTLS is not "our" runtime DLL, not more than msvcrt.dll is.
>
> Please understand: I'm not really arguing against installing the
> GnuTLS DLL along the emacs.exe binary (though, as a separate project,
> I still think it's better to install it on its own). I'm arguing
> against, and will continue to fight, *distributing* it in the first
> place with Emacs. We *are* *not* a binary distribution project, and we
> only do it for Windows because most Windows users do not have a
> building environment. Going that route means less programming
> resources and more administrivia.

AFAIK Windows binaries are distributed from the GNU servers just because
someone volunteers to do the job, not because it is a requisite for the
release. So it should be up to those volunteers to decide if they want
to include those libraries (GnuTLS, image support, etc) on the binary
package.

And if someone volunteers for maintaining a system that updates those
libraries, it is the job he picked.

A slightly different issue is to decide if changes to Emacs sources are
allowed to do that chore on certain way, but then it is up to the
volunteers again and solid reasons should be given to reject those
contributions.

>> I think that's more or less what Lennart is already doing, isn't it?
>
> Sort of. IMHO, Lennart's EmacsW32 is a fork, because he includes some
> changes that aren't just customizations (emacsclient is a prime
> example).

IIRC Lennart also distributes an unpatched Emacs.

>> OTOH an installer that could act as an update tool for the dlls could be
>> interesting.
>
> Yes, definitely. As long as developing it and maintaining it is
> anybody else's (= "not the Emacs w32 people") responsibility :-)

Ah, yes, the Emacs w32 people. Now I understand your stance better (and
maybe Eli's). I think it would be unfair and unreasonable to make you
responsible of doing the job related to those libraries, but I also
think that you are not obliged in any way to provide binaries of
anything. Keeping the sources on a ready state is enough, thank
you. (Not saying that you are *obliged* to do that either.)