On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 03:20:41PM -0600, Timm Murray wrote: > I missed the start of this thread, so I'm catching up a bit. > > A few years back, I realized that APT was already capable of pulling > packages off Freenet by using FProxy. This idea has already been proven > to work (though with nothing more than a few small packages). We even > got a little publicity in the Linux Journal using this system (article > available online at http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=4847). > > I personally lost intrest in APT over Freenet during the long phase of > Fred 0.4 non-functionality. Additionally, it was attached to the EOF > project, which is pretty much non-existant at this point. I think I > still have access to the project's web site and CVS repository, but I > don't think any of the project admins are around anymore. We'd probably > have to find a new place to host the project. > > If people are intrested, I'd be quite intrested in reviving APT over > Freenet. We can probably get a lot of new blood in the project now that > RPM-based systems can use APT (which wasn't true when the project was > first under development). When the project was last active, I think we > were discussing making a full-fledged protocol implementation for APT > instead of relying on an HTTP/FProxy hack. I will also have a colo'd > server up soon that could be used for hosting the project. If the > project goes signifcantly past what was being used in the first article, > I could probably talk to Don Marti about getting a second article > published. > > More below: > > On Fri, 2003-04-04 at 06:41, Matthew Toseland wrote: > <> > > I don't know. I worked on apt-get over fproxy in the past, it was a bit > > ridiculous, > > In retrospect, APT over Freenet was one of the saner things EOF was > working on :) (Quake over Freenet, anyone?)
Heh. I don't think anyone ever seriously considered Quake over Freenet. > > > but it'd be better with a proper downloader that could use > > splitfiles and many download threads... freenet could probably get a > > decent speed up in this situation, although there are lots of mirrors > > for debian. A Packages file could be generated with the addition of an > > X-CHK: header for each file, as well as the current md5sum; > > I'd go with SHA1 for anything new. The file already contains MD5sums. We would be adding a CHK. This of course means adding a get-CHK-for-splitfile-without-inserting-it command, but it's not difficult. > > > this could > > be run by a trusted individual either at debian and published there, or > > published as an SSK DBR. With some performance biases, as are likely to > > be implemented in the mid-term future, freenet could be extremely fast > > for this stuff, although most places there are already very fast > > mirrors. > > I've always thought of having the client automatically download and > insert any packages it couldn't get via Freenet. > Yeah, but you need to know where to get them from, and you need to have some reason to trust the packages. On both counts, the optimal thing is to have the Packages file contain a CHK for each file. > > I suppose you might not want Mallory to know exactly what > > packages you have installed just by monitoring your internet connection > > though, so there is a "privacy" argument, there is a "cover traffic" > > argument, > > The "cover traffic" argument (if I'm thinking of the same thing you are) > is what I tried to push in the Linux Journal article. That is, Freenet > would have a perfectly ligitimate use for automatic mirroring of Free > Software packages, mixed in with all that other stuff like DeCSS and > Scientology papers. > > However, cover traffic alone won't be enough for people to use APT over > Freenet if it means that it takes forever to get their packages. I have > my fingers crossed that Freenet will one day be only marginally slower > than the fastest web sites. Until then, we can at least set the > foundation for using APT over Freenet. > > > and there are of course possibilities for quasi-legal > > repositories maintained anonymously for nonredistributible packages :) > > Of course I don't know anything about that. :) > > > > > > The official word of the people I live with is that apt-over-freenet is a > > > completly useless thing to be doing, but I'd like to think that they're > > > wrong :-p > > > > > > - fish > > > > -- > > Matthew Toseland > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Full time freenet hacker. > > http://freenetproject.org/ > > Freenet Distribution Node (temporary) at > > http://80-192-4-36.cable.ubr09.na.blueyonder.co.uk:8889/yXV5QIkgv0c/ > > ICTHUS. > -- > #!/bin/bash > > echo "Timm Murray" > echo "Fingerprint: 591D DD8C 078C 7D45 ECE6 7B04 B62A 02C0 E4E1 43C6" > echo "" > > /usr/games/fortune email-sigs > > echo "" > echo "-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----" > echo "Version: 3.1" > echo "GCS d- s+: a-- C++(++++) UL++>++++ P+++>+++++$ L++>+++++$ !E W--@ > N++@ !o" > echo "!K w--- O@ M !V !PS !PE Y+(++) PGP+++ t@ 5+++ X@ R tv b++(++++) > DI++@ D+(++) " > echo "G e* h* r->r+++ y? " > echo "------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------" > echo "" > -- Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Full time freenet hacker. http://freenetproject.org/ Freenet Distribution Node (temporary) at http://80-192-4-36.cable.ubr09.na.blueyonder.co.uk:8889/kFAXSlo8MmY/ ICTHUS.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
