Re: proposal: require GnuTLS 3.1.x (previous stable)

[Peder O. Klingenberg]

On Wed, Nov 26 2014 at 08:08, Ted Zlatanov wrote:

> Peder, your whole argument could have applied to supporting GnuTLS 1.x
> back when we added support for 2.x the first time, because people still
> used it and didn't want to upgrade their system.  Inertia is not a bad
> thing, but we're talking about the master branch of The Most Advanced
> Editor Ever Invented(TM).  Sacrifices must be made :)

I'm not arguing against requiring a newer GnuTLS.  Far from it.  I have
no deep opinions on the subject.  Please don't read any such resistance
into anything I wrote.

Ivan asked why anyone would build master on an old system.  I merely
offered my rationalisations for doing so.

> I'm sure we can argue about this for a while, but I personally would
> just like to set a cutover date where GnuTLS 2.x is not supported, not
> debate convenience and featuritis. How about Emacs 26?

No need to argue with me, at least.  The maintenance burden for
supporting older libraries is obvious.  A cutover date of "tomorrow"
would be fine by me.

For my part, I'm fairly confident that I'll be able to aquire the
required version of GnuTLS, should my distribution not supply it.  That
is a burden I accept by running my system as I do.  If it turns out I'm
wrong, and compiling GnuTLS causes problems, then that will be a reason
to upgrade my distribution.

...Peder...
-- 
I wish a new life awaited _me_ in some off-world colony.