As I mentioned in the ticket, you need to run > ndk-build in the /orbotservice directory to create those native assets first.
We are working on extracting the native binary build components into a separate gradle dependency, to make working on the app itself, easier. For now though, yes, you must build! On Tue, Nov 15, 2016, at 01:19 PM, arrase wrote: > It's hard to build Orbot, I solved several problems with the toolchain > but > now I'm stuck here building Tor binary: > > zip ../orbotservice/src/main/assets/armeabi/pdnsd.mp3 > ../orbotservice/src/main/libs/armeabi/pdnsd > zip warning: name not matched: > ../orbotservice/src/main/libs/armeabi/pdnsd > > zip error: Nothing to do! > (../orbotservice/src/main/assets/armeabi/pdnsd.mp3) > > Is it a known error? > > For this case I have not found references in google > > > 2016-11-15 20:14 GMT+01:00 arrase <[email protected]>: > > > Great , is all i need to start, many thanks. > > > > 2016-11-15 20:02 GMT+01:00 Hans-Christoph Steiner < > > [email protected]>: > > > >> > >> I think it would work like the start/status intents that are currently > >> in Orbot. The app sends an Intent to Orbot to request a Hidden Service > >> to be created, then Orbot sends reply status Intents to the app that > >> made the request with all relevant info, including a FileProvider URI > >> with GRANT URI permissions so that the requesting app can get the > >> private key. That'd be the whole API, unless you also want to make a > >> "stop hidden service" Intent. > >> > >> No need to change anything about the control, the whole API would be > >> based on those Intents, and we can use the TrustedIntents library to > >> enforce that the reply only goes to the exact app that requested it. As > >> a start, it would be fine to send the reply based on packageName. > >> > >> .hc > >> > >> arrase: > >> > Are you suggesting something? XD > >> > > >> > I can take a look at the problem and propose a solution, it will not be > >> > fast but I can do it. > >> > > >> > Tonight I will try to compile Orbot from sources and try to familiarize > >> > myself with the code. (Is there a wiki with info??) > >> > > >> > How do you want to focus the change? What should be possible by a third > >> > party? > >> > > >> > In my opinion: > >> > > >> > - Be able to register a hidden service for your ports without sharing it > >> > with other applications. > >> > - Be able to backup the configuration files in order to migrate the > >> service. > >> > - Everything should be possible without root > >> > > >> > It would be nice if all this was possible without giving access to the > >> Tor > >> > configuration port, but right now I can not think of how to do it. > >> > > >> > I keep thinking ..... after working, I'll dedicate some time to the > >> problem > >> > > >> > > >> > 2016-11-15 14:19 GMT+01:00 Hans-Christoph Steiner < > >> [email protected] > >> >> : > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> arrase: > >> >>> 2016-11-15 13:23 GMT+01:00 Michael Rogers <[email protected]>: > >> >>> > >> >>>> Hi arrase, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Thanks for discovering this bug. Can you describe how Briar's Tor > >> daemon > >> >>>> conflicts with Orbot? What problems does it cause? Our goal is for > >> Briar > >> >>>> to be able to operate on the same device as Orbot without problems. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> I do not think it could be called a bug, and definitely not a Briar > >> bug > >> >> at > >> >>> all. I find it hard to argue in English, I'm sorry. > >> >>> > >> >>> But if it is true that is a problem if more applications follow the > >> same > >> >>> path as Briar implementing a Tor daemon within the application. > >> >>> > >> >>> Briar opens those ports for Tor: > >> >>> > >> >>> Tcp 0 0 127.0.0.1:59050 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 10019 214952 18753 > >> >>> Tcp 0 0 127.0.0.1:59051 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 10019 213387 18753 > >> >>> > >> >>> If Orbot starts first, nothing prevents it from taking ports 59050 and > >> >>> 59051 as control ports. It is a remote but real possibility and would > >> be > >> >>> more real when more applications opt for the same solution. > >> >>> > >> >>> It's just an argument about changing the hidden service API for Orbot. > >> >>> > >> >>> I think there are more strong arguments like that each application can > >> >>> manage the configuration files of the hidden service to be able to > >> >> migrate > >> >>> between devices. > >> >>> > >> >>> It does not look very good to make an application that uses the hidden > >> >>> service as a user identifier and if we lose the device we lose our > >> entire > >> >>> network of contacts. > >> >>> > >> >>> I think they are good arguments for bringing about an improvement in > >> >> Orbot > >> >>> APi as proposed by Nathan. > >> >> > >> >> I think we all want to have a nice Intent-based API in Orbot for apps > >> to > >> >> work with Hidden Services, the real question is: who is going to do the > >> >> work. That would be a great place for you to start to get involved. > >> >> > >> >> .hc > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> PGP fingerprint: EE66 20C7 136B 0D2C 456C 0A4D E9E2 8DEA 00AA 5556 > >> >> https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0xE9E28DEA00AA5556 > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/guardian-dev > >> >> To unsubscribe, email: [email protected] > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> PGP fingerprint: EE66 20C7 136B 0D2C 456C 0A4D E9E2 8DEA 00AA 5556 > >> https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=0xE9E28DEA00AA5556 > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/guardian-dev > To unsubscribe, email: [email protected] -- Nathan of Guardian [email protected] _______________________________________________ List info: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/guardian-dev To unsubscribe, email: [email protected]
