From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/75001 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: gnutls status Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:59:34 -0600 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87tyigm04p.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87ipzkmgfn.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1292367606 18195 80.91.229.12 (14 Dec 2010 23:00:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:00:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M23357@lists.math.uh.edu Wed Dec 15 00:00:02 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PSdqj-0005ta-Mz for ding-account@gmane.org; Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:00:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PSdqb-00066w-Ge; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:59:53 -0600 Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1PSdqa-00066j-8i for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:59:52 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PSdqW-00007E-8S for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 16:59:52 -0600 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PSdqV-0001xD-EO for ding@gnus.org; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:59:47 +0100 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PSdqU-0005jm-VI for ding@gnus.org; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:59:46 +0100 Original-Received: from 38.98.147.130 ([38.98.147.130]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:59:46 +0100 Original-Received: from tzz by 38.98.147.130 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:59:46 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 47 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 38.98.147.130 X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6;d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:jFTbFpkBw6/pIfqQVOL3IGHF1V4= X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:75001 gmane.emacs.devel:133702 Archived-At: On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 15:10:39 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: LMI> Is 2.10.x at least backwards-compatible, so that if we do implement the LMI> complicated 2.8.x features, it'll continue to work in the future, too? Yes. They try really hard to keep backwards compatibility. I'd guess for all 2.x releases we'll be OK unless there's newer features we simply must have :) >> I think every package should explicitly choose to support gnutls.el, it >> shouldn't be an Emacs-wide choice. There's too many configuration >> options that depend on the purpose. For instance IMAP and HTTPS have >> really different security needs. LMI> True. On the other hand, look at `nnimap-open-connection' and weep. It LMI> started off as a simple function and grew into a monster. That's why I LMI> haven't adapted nntp/pop3/etc to use gnutls yet -- I don't want to have LMI> to repeat the same code all over the place. ...thanks for working on proto-stream.el, it's made all this much simpler. On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 13:51:09 +0100 Julien Danjou wrote: JD> My opinion is go with 2.10. On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 09:28:11 -0500 Stefan Monnier wrote: >> So gnutls 2.10 will not be in Debian stable when Emacs 24 get released >> (unless Emacs 24 is released after mid-2012). But most users won't try >> to install Emacs 24 on it anyway. SM> That's a good point. Especially since gnutls is not indispensable for SM> Emacs, so as long as we properly handle the case where the gnutls library SM> to too old (either by not using it, or by using some fallback code), SM> then I'm OK with it. OK, I will put upgrading Emacs' support of GnuTLS to 2.10 on my TODO list. Which means it won't happen soon, so if anyone else is feeling frisky, go ahead and do it. I listed what's necessary in my original e-mail here; basically it's callbacks but there's other features in the 2.10 API we should use if possible. I think that supporting 2.8 is counterproductive so I'll happily target only 2.10. I think that's reasonable and doesn't put a big burden on the users and distros. Ted