GNU bug report logs - #50507
New function in Emacs GnuTLS implementation

Previous Next

Full log

Message #48 received at 50507 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Nikolaos Chatzikonstantinou <nchatz314 <at> gmail.com>
Cc: 50507 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, rpluim <at> gmail.com, larsi <at> gnus.org
Subject: Re: bug#50507: New function in Emacs GnuTLS implementation
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:29:27 +0300

> From: Nikolaos Chatzikonstantinou <nchatz314 <at> gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2022 17:39:09 -0400
> Cc: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>, 50507 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
> 
> > In any case, if youʼre going to replace _file with _file2, you should
> > describe the new constraints on the arguments. e.g. Maybe having pass
> > as nil is OK, but then you need to say that, or maybe you need to fall
> > back to _file if :pass is not specified.
> 
> Okay, will do. The first version of the function exists since 0.4.0
> but the second appeared "recently" in 3.2.0 (released on June
> 2013). Should I put some preprocessor #if checks?

Yes, we already have those in gnutls.c.  Example:

  # if GNUTLS_VERSION_NUMBER >= 0x030014
  #  define HAVE_GNUTLS_X509_SYSTEM_TRUST
  # endif

> How would the docstring be affected? Instead of duplicating the
> string (can't put #if inside its body, it's already in a macro),
> perhaps I should write that the feature is "only supported with
> GnuTLS 3.2.0 and above")

You don't have to mention the GnuTLS version explicitly, you can say
something more vague, like "supported by recent enough GnuTLS".

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.