Re: GnuTLS updates proposal

[Ted Zlatanov]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 21:52:14 -0400 Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> wrote: 

>> I am proposing that GnuTLS updates should be pushed out this way (which
>> would also cover installation, so the user doesn't have to get it from a
>> ZIP file on W32 or from God knows where on Mac OS X...  Homebrew or Fink
>> or something else) instead of putting that responsibility on the user.

SM> That sounds OK so far.

Wonderful.

>> We could use the GNU ELPA as the transport (once it has package
>> signing).  I can be responsible for following the GnuTLS announcements.

SM> Now I lost you.  How did we go from "gnutls" to "we"?
SM> Shouldn't some gnutls guys take care of that?

So far they have not and it's not a priority to them.  Eli did a lot of
work cleaning up the code and getting it to compile--it's thanks to him
that Emacs has a recent GnuTLS DLL.

If you want, I can ask again and see what they say now... I'm not
optimistic.

So, as far as building the GnuTLS DLLs, I'm hopeful we'll find a way to
automate that but not hopeful that it will happen on the GnuTLS
maintainers' side.  Building them on Mac OS X is trivial.  This is the
"hard work" part and Eli already pointed out we'll need volunteers and
resources.

Whoever provides the actual DLLs, there has to be a package maintainer
for the GNU ELPA package of GnuTLS; I will do it unless there's someone
else excited by the prospect of tracking security announcements.  Plus,
of course, we can't rely on the GNU ELPA for library updates until the
package signing work is done.

Ted