My signature:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Linux distribution packaging and Bitcoin
2013-07-23
This note summarises the dangers inherent in the Linux distribution
packaging model for Bitcoin, and forms a request from upstream
Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com writes:
It's portable to anything that can run the relevant VMs. Uh
provided you don't mind cross compiling everything from an unbuntu VM.
It certainly would be nice if the trusted-computing-base for gitian
were a bit smaller, thats an area for long term
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Yeah, if anyone wants to make the letter more digestable please do propose
an alternative, although by this point it's probably not worth it as people
have already signed.
I'm working on a more digestable alternative:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:28:16AM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
Yeah, if anyone wants to make the letter more digestable please do propose
an alternative, although by this point it's probably not worth it as people
have already signed.
Okay, here's my attempt:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Mike Hearn m...@plan99.net wrote:
Hi,
Some of us have put together an open letter to the Linux packaging
community, outlining why Bitcoin is different to other programs and asking
them to not patch or modify the upstream sources.
Please consider signing it
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 10:02:28 PM Scott Howard wrote:
1) It appears that the consensus of upstream developers is that any
distributed binary should only be linked against libraries that the
bitcoin developers have tested and audited since any compatibility bug
is a risk to both the user
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:01:55PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
The trigger for this is the discovery that Debian bitcoind's got split out
of the consensus some time in April, for reasons that nobody yet figured
out but is presumably related to a patch (eg it uses system leveldb).
Just to make
I find it interesting that this is a linux packaging letter. How much
of this applies to pkgsrc, FreeBSD ports, OpenBSD ports, and other
non-Linux packaging systems (pkgsrc supports Linux as on of 20 operating
systems, but is not a Linux packaging system)?
Is the repeatable build infrastructure
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Greg Troxel g...@work.lexort.com wrote:
Is the repeatable build infrastructure portable (to any reasonable
mostly-POSIX-compliant system, with gcc or clang)? I have the vague
It's portable to anything that can run the relevant VMs. Uh
provided you don't mind
Honestly, until I read the quoted part of your response, I actually wasn't in
favor of this whole thing since in general the types of issues being mentioned
are, in large part, the types of issues that maintainers deal with all the time.
On Jul 23, 2013, at 3:02 PM, Scott Howard
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Douglas Huff dh...@jrbobdobbs.org wrote:
Honestly, until I read the quoted part of your response, I actually wasn't in
favor of this whole thing since in general the types of issues being
mentioned are, in large part, the types of issues that maintainers deal
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:26 PM, Luke-Jr l...@dashjr.org wrote:
This means a lot of additional work for the
maintainers of the library packages, and the security team; for example, the
security team must understand that they *cannot* deploy a critical security
bugfix to LevelDB until someone
12 matches
Mail list logo
