emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[debbugs-tracker] bug#29147: closed (27.0.50; gnutls-available-p broken)


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#29147: closed (27.0.50; gnutls-available-p broken)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 21:39:01 +0000

Your message dated Mon, 06 Nov 2017 23:35:51 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#29147: 27.0.50; gnutls-available-p broken
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #29147,
regarding 27.0.50; gnutls-available-p broken
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
29147: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=29147
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: 27.0.50; gnutls-available-p broken Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2017 23:53:27 +0200 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
The Emacs GnuTLS manual says that gnutls-available-p returns t
if GnuTLS is available, but really it returns nil, and I don't see
how gnutls-available-p is supposed to return a non-nil value
when HAVE_GNUTLS is defined, but HAVE_GNUTLS3 is not.



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#29147: 27.0.50; gnutls-available-p broken Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2017 23:35:51 +0200 User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
>> > The Emacs GnuTLS manual says that gnutls-available-p returns t
>> > if GnuTLS is available, but really it returns nil, and I don't see
>> > how gnutls-available-p is supposed to return a non-nil value
>> > when HAVE_GNUTLS is defined, but HAVE_GNUTLS3 is not.
>>
>> Its docstring says:
>>
>>     gnutls-available-p is a built-in function in `C source code'.
>>
>>     (gnutls-available-p)
>>
>>     Return list of capabilities if GnuTLS is available in this instance of 
>> Emacs.
>>
>> I see that the info documentation says it returns t, so that needs
>> fixing.
>
> Not just the documentation, the code as well needs fixing.
>
>> Your point about HAVE_GNUTLS3 is valid, that's true as of commit
>> 583995c62dd424775dda33d5134ce04bee2ae685. Ted, was that intentional?
>
> I cannot see how this could be intentional, because it makes it
> impossible to distinguish between GnuTLS 2.x and no GnuTLS at all.  So
> I fixed this on the release branch.
>
> If Juri (or someone else) has GnuTLS 2.x, please test and close the
> bug if it is indeed fixed.

Thanks, with this change it works now without problems,
so I'm closing this bug.


--- End Message ---

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]