[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GnuTLS for W32

From: Juanma Barranquero
Subject: Re: GnuTLS for W32
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 04:08:56 +0100

On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 03:37, Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> wrote:

> Furthermore, if that's the
> sentiment on the rest of the w32 emacs people and the project leaders,
> I'll urge you to stop distributing MS Windows binaries. I'm pretty sure
> that there will be no shortage of Emacs binaries for MS Windows.

Oh, I'm not against distributing our binaries. Emphasis in "our".

> That's not proactive.

What's the proactive way to do it in a source-only project? Are you
suggesting that all projects do include some kind of run-time check? I
already gave a short list of some software in my computer that does
not take proactive action. I could add lots more, like git, mercurial,
MinGW, Take Command, Python, Evernote, etc. Some of them have a menu
option to check for updates, or installer programs with an update
option, but they don't do it automatically.

> Really, I can't see how you object to automatic checks for
> critical updates.

Because we don't have (or very rarely have) critical updates. Let
GnuTLS announce their critical updates any way they see fit.

> Even less can I understand how you object to that
> feature in principle, not just as personal preference.

It's a change from one model of development and distribution to
another one. I like the way Emacs is right now. Source. You compile
it, and have a binary that does not depend on some mythical,
externally maintained resource.

I don't like ELPA much, either, though I understand how can be useful.
But I'm distressed by the impulse to move things from Emacs to ELPA.


reply via email to

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