Jerry James writes:
This is the latest iteration of the TLS patch
Why not a public branch? This is truly exciting stuff! (Excuse my
faux pas if you already did....) N.B. If you decide to commit now, no
point in a branch, of course. I'm just hoping we can have more
visibility for our activity going forward.
I've been working on (and off) for some time now. I believe
iteration is ready for serious consideration for inclusion in
OK by me, since it's optional (should default to yes but build or
other problems can be handled by --with-tls=no).
I think you should try gnutls first, though, although you can document
that choice as "likely to change". Rationale: I have no objection to
preferring nss or openssl once we resolve the gnutls.el compatibilty
issue (even if we resolve it "not worth the effort"), but during the
beta we really want as much Emacs code to work out of the box as
Please do it "soon" and I can release a beta (which you may have
noticed is long overdue, fsck my employer -- not that fsck would help,
We still need an Emacs-compatible gnutls.el. That's going to be
since Emacs's Lisp code is very gnutls-specific;
I say, just live with it. People who want Emacs compatibility will
just have to go --with-tls=gnutls for the nonce.
This isn't a real review, so no APPROVE, but I'm sure not gonna VETO
if you self-approve.
P.S. It would be appreciated if you would remove the patch to
configure, and just leave configure.ac for review. IMO YMMV WDOT?
XEmacs-Patches mailing list