Re: [GNUnet-developers] website and logo rework

Hi, > On 17. May 2018, at 13:25, hyazin...@emailn.de wrote: > > Hello, > > seeing the logo, this network forming the silouette of a gnu, sparked > excitement in me. > This is an improvement to the current logo. And it motivated me to > play a little bit around with its relationship to added

Re: [GNUnet-developers] website and logo rework

pending on who applies. > It's not a good solution, but who knows what some random company is > daydreaming of... > >> >> >> I read reports that DTAG also applied for a trademark on the term >> "internet". So at least there we are safe. >>

Re: [GNUnet-developers] website and logo rework

18:57, Nils Gillmann <n...@n0.is> wrote: > > Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 10K bytes: >> Hey, >> >>> On 17. May 2018, at 17:12, Nils Gillmann <n...@n0.is> wrote: >>> >>> Christian Grothoff transcribed 34K bytes: >>>> Dear al

Re: [GNUnet-developers] New gnunet bibliography

> On 17. May 2018, at 21:13, Nils Gillmann <n...@n0.is> wrote: > > Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 3.1K bytes: >> I do not want to hijack the other thread so I open this. >> I can help with the bib, but when I do a "make" in the gnunetbib (after I &g

[GNUnet-developers] New gnunet bibliography

I do not want to hijack the other thread so I open this. I can help with the bib, but when I do a "make" in the gnunetbib (after I fix all the quote errors) I get 2295 "ERROR"s a la: ERROR: Misformed pages in 1962 ERROR: reed60polynomial has no www_section field ERROR: Misformed pages in

Re: [GNUnet-developers] New gnunet bibliography

electors do not work, yet. Not sure how they work anyway though. BR Martin > On 17. May 2018, at 20:04, Schanzenbach, Martin <mschanzenb...@posteo.de> > wrote: > > I do not want to hijack the other thread so I open this. > I can help with the bib, but when I do a "make&q

Re: [GNUnet-developers] license clarification webui

Yes. I think this is a relict from the scaffolding hello world from angular. Will be changed to AGPL. BR > On 9. Jun 2018, at 17:36, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > Dear Phil and Martin, > > Prompted by Nils, I just looked at the WebUI code and there are more > issues. First of all, it should

Re: [GNUnet-developers] documentation: Rewriting the Installation Handbook with a focus on simplicity and coverage

Hi, my 2 cents on the Installation Handbook: I actually thing that installing from source is not something the average joe should have to do. Ideally there is an installer package (MSI,dmg/pkg,.deb/.rpm). Alternatively (and temporarily until we are in alpha/beta), we could provide a docker

Re: [GNUnet-developers] documentation: Rewriting the Installation Handbook with a focus on simplicity and coverage

> On 3. Jun 2018, at 22:33, Nils Gillmann wrote: > > Hi, > > Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 6.5K bytes: >> Hi, >> >> my 2 cents on the Installation Handbook: > > thanks :) > >> I actually thing that installing from source is not somethi

Re: [GNUnet-developers] documentation: Rewriting the Installation Handbook with a focus on simplicity and coverage

installer) (WIP!) Eventually this could be changed into: 1. I just want to use it (binary packages/installer) 2. I want to develop! (from source) 3. Optional: Use docker image to run GNUnet without installing > On 4. Jun 2018, at 10:34, Nils Gillmann wrote: > > Nils Gillmann transcrib

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Troubleshooting CADET

Hi, I kind of agree. > On 26. Oct 2017, at 19:51, carlo von lynX wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 05:42:45PM +0200, Christian Grothoff wrote: >> 2) Yes, running in the 'global' network with outdated peers is likely to >> cause all kinds of fun problems, as the

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Troubleshooting CADET

ist for the last release and > gnunet.org/hostlist for git. > (At least that's the way I read it.) > > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 06:56:44 +, ng0 wrote: >> Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 4.5K bytes: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I kind of ag

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Troubleshooting CADET

Hi Peter, I am not going to respond to the individual steps inline as I do not have anything particular to add there. But I have experienced exactly the same issue. Unfortunately, I am not sure what the underlying problem is. Maybe Christian knows of some open blocking bugs in cadet.

Re: [GNUnet-developers] [IMPORTANT] Ideas for Summer of Code 2018

Hi, I would mentor the REST project (again). Further, I am thinking about a zero-knowledge GNS record based on zkSNARKS or Bulletproof. This could be used in combination with GNS to serve privacy-preserving attribute-based credentials. WDYT? I am also open to co-mentoring any of the other

Re: [GNUnet-developers] website and logo rework

Hi, > On 26. Jan 2018, at 01:07, amirouche wrote: > > Héllo, > > > I got into creating a new logo for gnunet and work on the new gnunet website. Any reason for that? I quite like the current logo. It represents the name very well (A GNU on a net). Maybe it could be

Re: [GNUnet-developers] website and logo rework

> On 26. Jan 2018, at 19:31, carlo von lynX wrote: > > Martin, we are the minority of people who accepted > the gnu on the web... You have anything to back that claim? > maybe we want to extend our > audience to the people that think that such a home- > grown logo

Re: [GNUnet-developers] website and logo rework

design standards (see links in the links) the current icon is maybe not ideal, but good. > On 26. Jan 2018, at 20:45, Schanzenbach, Martin <mschanzenb...@posteo.de> > wrote: > > > >> On 26. Jan 2018, at 19:31, carlo von lynX <l...@time.to.get.psyced.org

Re: [GNUnet-developers] website and logo rework

> On 27. Jan 2018, at 10:09, amirouche wrote: > > Thanks everyone for the feedback! > > I will not reply to every single mail and try to summarize the the whole > thread here. > > Le ven. 26 janv. 2018 à 23:44, Marcel Klehr a écrit : >> Hey

Re: [GNUnet-developers] website and logo rework

Thanks! Looks great. Initially, I was pretty skeptical. But I really like the last few batches from everyone. The one I dig the most at the moment is the wireframe GNU. Although the design is clearly borrowed from the Guix icon, it is a nice makeover of the current logo because it keeps the

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GSoC mentors registration

Registered. How/Where do we collect the ideas? And how to they end up in the GSoC portal again? Further, as a reminder: I am willing to co-mentor. If you want to share the load etc please tell me now before I think of more projects. BR Martin > On 12. Feb 2018, at 22:39, Christian Grothoff

Re: [GNUnet-developers] New README.md and Github

GNOME is actually a very good example for a project that has it's own and very good contribution guidelines (https://www.gnome.org/get-involved/). Btw just look at the FAQs of the Github page: https://wiki.gnome.org/Sysadmin/GitHub Pull requests -> No, Issues -> No What is the point of github

[GNUnet-developers] Reverse GNS lookups, revisited

Hi, we already had a discussion some time ago wrt reverse lookups of names. I currently have a (usability) need, where I want to translate a PKEY back to TLD, if possible. After the recent changes this would involve (fora given key P): 1. Checking if a local identity matches P, if yes, return

Re: [GNUnet-developers] [IMPORTANT] Ideas for Summer of Code 2018

Hi Jeff, Quick question: To what degree is gnunet-rs usable? I would really like to move the REST APIs to rocket (https://rocket.rs/). Maybe that would also be a nice GSoC task. But I not sure how reasonable such a proposal would be? BR Martin > On 17. Jan 2018, at 19:09, Jeff Burdges

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GSoC mentors registration

018, at 01:20, Christian Grothoff <groth...@gnunet.org> wrote: > > There is a GSoC page on gnunet.org, which you ought to be able to edit. > > co-mentoring will depend on the subject... > > On 02/14/2018 08:03 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> Registered. How/Where

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Towards a new formalized release policy

Hi, "Proper" CI is something I really miss atm. I am kind of used to gitlab-ci atm and it is really nice to work with and setup as it is docker based. I further propose one other thing that is a low hanging fruit given a good CI system: Dockerize gnunet A gnunet docker image that is

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Guix based tooling for GNUNet

Hmm. The nssdir thing is just a warning. There seems to be a permissions problem for the configure files (such as config.log). That must be rooted in the build system (guix?) in this case though. For example: I guess you could reproduce it by executing configure as root and then after as user.

Re: [GNUnet-developers] libwget2

So. Christian is a bit better with those things but I have just taken a brief look into wget2. The thing is that curl has a "nice" way of having your own scheduling (using curl_multi_perform etc). As far as I can see wget2 (apart from having a _huge_ kitchensink as well) does internal

Re: [GNUnet-developers] libwget2

Hi, I guess one thing is that we need (gn|c)url for other things than downloading (e.g. proxying see gns). Can wget do other things? A brief look at the API makes me doubt that. If not, then wget2 is just another additional dependency. BR > On 22. Mar 2018, at 19:13, ng0 wrote: >

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Goodbye ".gnu"

Hi, I have a few "concerns": > On 3. Mar 2018, at 23:06, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > Dear all, > > I've just pushed a significant change to GNS to master, which may affect > some of you and I wanted to make sure you're not caught unaware. > > Basically, I've removed

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Goodbye ".gnu"

en _I_ must populate that namespace. I cannot delegate it anymore. With a default root namespace (formerly known as "gns-master"), what namespace would I use for delegation of the "de" TLD? > On 4. Mar 2018, at 11:32, Christian Grothoff <groth...@gnunet.org> wrote: >

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Goodbye ".gnu"

> On 4. Mar 2018, at 13:56, Schanzenbach, Martin <mschanzenb...@posteo.de> > wrote: > > I don't understand how you can delegate TLDs. > In GNUnet currently we have identities (=local namespaces). > As I understand it, those are now the TLDs handled locally via GNS. &g

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Goodbye ".gnu"

Hi, I need two clarifications as this change basically broke everything ;) 1. API: The GNS_lookup API call takes a zone to look up in. Previously tools looked up the "gns-master" for a sane default value. This is no longer needed I guess?? If yes, we should remove it. 2. Proxy: The proxy still

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Goodbye ".gnu"

Hi, I think I "fixed" the proxy. It is not pretty but works for me now. > On 5. Mar 2018, at 18:42, Christian Grothoff <groth...@gnunet.org> wrote: > > On 03/05/2018 05:14 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I need two clarification

[GNUnet-developers] Connectivity issues

Hi, I am getting a lot of those lately from the gnunet.org peer: Oct 01 16:24:32-354230 transport-824 ERROR Assertion failed at gnunet-service-transport_validation.c:896. Oct 01 16:24:32-354243 transport-824 ERROR Address with 24 bytes for plugin tcp and peer DSTJ is malformed does sb know

Re: [GNUnet-developers] 2 license headers to fix

> On 14. Jan 2019, at 22:25, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > Signed PGP part > On 1/14/19 7:35 PM, n...@n0.is wrote: >> I started a new branch with my work on spdx via scripts (there are >> applications, but our use-case >> is simple enough to do it with pipes for now). >> >> Odd results upon

[GNUnet-developers] Decentralized Identifier W3C

Hi, does it make sense to implement this [1] for GNS/GNUnet identities? Maybe as a GSoC? BR [1] https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/ signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ GNUnet-developers mailing list GNUnet-developers@gnu.org

Re: [GNUnet-developers] estimated 0.11 release or next rc?

I would advocate that we do not release before we have proper test automation/CI in place again. Too much code has changed. > On 24. Jan 2019, at 14:21, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > On 1/24/19 12:46 PM, n...@n0.is wrote: >> About one year ago we released the first release candidate for 0.11.

Re: [GNUnet-developers] estimated 0.11 release or next rc?

's discuss! > > Devan / dvn > > >> Thanks! >> >> Christian >> >> On 1/27/19 10:26 AM, Catonano wrote: >>> >>> >>> Il giorno sab 26 gen 2019 alle ore 11:00 Schanzenbach, Martin >>> mailto:mschanzenb...@posteo.de>> ha scritto

Re: [GNUnet-developers] estimated 0.11 release or next rc?

Maybe this is useful in the context of a mantis migration: https://github.com/nonplus/mantis2gitlab > On 28. Jan 2019, at 13:40, Schanzenbach, Martin > wrote: > > Signed PGP part > > >> On 28. Jan 2019, at 12:17, n...@n0.is wrote: >> >> Schanzenbach, M

Re: [GNUnet-developers] estimated 0.11 release or next rc?

> On 28. Jan 2019, at 12:17, n...@n0.is wrote: > > Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 5.2K bytes: >> Hi, >> >>> On 28. Jan 2019, at 00:45, Christian Grothoff >>> wrote: >>> >>> Signed PGP part >>> On 1/28/19 12:28 AM, Schanzen

Re: [GNUnet-developers] A Graph Database on top GNUnet (take two)

I think we have something like it: GNUNET_GNSRECORD_TYPE_VPN is the type for VPN which uses cadet. A bare CADET record does not exists, but if needed, could be added. > On 24. Mar 2019, at 09:37, IC Rainbow wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2019 at 4:44 PM Christian Grothoff > wrote: > >> Please

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues

Thanks for the writeup. My comments below. > On 5. Apr 2019, at 21:20, Devan C. dvn wrote: > > Signed PGP part > Hello my fellow GNUnetians, > > As some of you know, I have been pushing for and working on getting us > to CI/CD system based on Gitlab CI. This is pretty much ready to start >

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues

> On 7. Apr 2019, at 13:36, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > On 4/7/19 11:11 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >>>> On 4/7/19 8:33 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >>>>> Contributors should be able to do anything they want in their own >>>>> namespa

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues

> On 7. Apr 2019, at 19:20, Florian Dold wrote: > > On 4/7/19 6:46 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> The CAA does not help in any way. You are still liable as a platform. It has >> literally nothing to do with the copyright infringements if the contributor >> copi

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUnet 0.11.0 released

:/ seems like --enable-experimental FTBFS > On 28. Feb 2019, at 13:53, Daniel Golle wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:39:12PM +0100, Christian Grothoff wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> We are pleased to announce the release of GNUnet 0.11.0. >> >> This is a major release after about five years

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUnet 0.11.0 released

I fixed in in HEAD, but we will have to wait for 0.11.1 in a few weeks for it to land to land. Since it is experimental, it's not the end of the world, but annoying. @grothoff: Did you already branch the 0.11.x? > On 28. Feb 2019, at 14:14, Schanzenbach, Martin > wrote: > > Sig

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Cadet bug: blocked cadet channel in case of non reliablle channel

ote: > > Hey Martin, > > my proposal will not deliver messages out of order. > > It just will not wait for a message to appear and drop another message > we already received instead. > > On 24.02.19 21:50, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> a quick

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Cadet bug: blocked cadet channel in case of non reliablle channel

> > That said, I do remember that that entire unreliable messaging was never > properly tested... > > On 2/24/19 9:50 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> Hi, >> >> a quick look into the bug (not a CADET expert) makes me questions the >> proposed behavi

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Cadet bug: blocked cadet channel in case of non reliablle channel

ption. > On 24. Feb 2019, at 21:50, Schanzenbach, Martin > wrote: > > Signed PGP part > Hi, > > a quick look into the bug (not a CADET expert) makes me questions the > proposed behaviour: > > "Proposal how to change that behavior: > > We will

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Cadet bug: blocked cadet channel in case of non reliablle channel

Hi, a quick look into the bug (not a CADET expert) makes me questions the proposed behaviour: "Proposal how to change that behavior: We will not drop the oldest message in the queue, but we send as much messages from the queue as we have messages with consecutive MIDs. After that the queue

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Cadet bug: blocked cadet channel in case of non reliablle channel

Ah the DLL is sorted by message ID. Well. Then eviction in this order does not make sense, I guess ;) > On 24. Feb 2019, at 22:02, Schanzenbach, Martin > wrote: > > Signed PGP part > As far as I can see, the head element of a DLL is removed. > Unless elements are in

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Please review: C implementation of gnunet-qr

I wish we had gitlab and a pull request mechanism... ;) > On 3. Mar 2019, at 11:03, Hartmut Goebel wrote: > > Hi, > > I just pushed the branch "gnunt-qt-c". > > Please review and give feedback. And somebody is asked to implement > c-style error handling (or guide me): The "processor" must be

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Please review: C implementation of gnunet-qr

Hi, thank you for the contribution! A few points: 1. The first thing you should do it use GNUNET_PROGRAM*. Please look at the main of, for example, gnunet-ecc.c. This is how argument parsing and program invocation in gnunet is done. This also applies for gnunet-qr. 2. Instead of calling the

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

> On 14. Mar 2019, at 09:10, Hartmut Goebel > wrote: > > Am 13.03.19 um 19:16 schrieb Schanzenbach, Martin: >> In the end, please also check https://docs.gnunet.org/#Coding-style and >> adjust your editor to it. >> Currently, the file has mixed spaces and

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Updating my git work-in-progess branch?

till using or > working on, and old stuff was removed > > branches were code reviewed before merging them to "next", not unlike > pull requests on github. only release-maintainers could push to master, > while next was more open, but never allowed force-pushes. >

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

No it was not. I am pretty sure that instead of calling gnunet-uri as a binary from a binary is pretty nonsensical. Instead, gnunet-qr should just do what gnunet-uri does with the uri. If we need to share code between them, fine, then refactor. But imitating python behavior here is not good

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

style ;) BR > On 13. Mar 2019, at 19:11, Schanzenbach, Martin > wrote: > > Signed PGP part > Hi! > >> On 13. Mar 2019, at 18:25, Hartmut Goebel >> wrote: >> >> Hi Martin, >> >> Am 03.03.19 um 11:33 schrieb Schanzenbach, Martin: >>

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

Hi! > On 13. Mar 2019, at 18:25, Hartmut Goebel > wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > Am 03.03.19 um 11:33 schrieb Schanzenbach, Martin: >> The first thing you should do it use GNUNET_PROGRAM*. > I followed this advice, adding options --verbose, -s/--silent and > -d/-

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

I don't like changing somebody else's lines just for intendation because it messes with git blame. So I think it is better to hold people to the coding style. BR > On 13. Mar 2019, at 20:01, n...@n0.is wrote: > > Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 4.9K bytes: >> In the end, pl

Re: [GNUnet-developers] service files

Hi, > On 7. Mar 2019, at 15:28, n...@n0.is wrote: > > I just learned about a couple more specific systemd settings. > The ones I think which could be useful to extend our systemd > example service with are below. > >> PrivateTmp: >> Use private /tmp and /var/tmp folders inside a new file system

Re: [GNUnet-developers] gnunet-publish --disable-creation-time

I would assume this also applies to gns proxy and dns2gns? > On 9. Mar 2019, at 15:32, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > I think that's OK, as long as the REST endpoints only bind to localhost > by default. So IMO the real bug here is that we do not do that right now. > > Martin: could you add a

Re: [GNUnet-developers] gnunet-publish --disable-creation-time

Fixed > On 9. Mar 2019, at 15:44, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > Yeah, we should change those as well. > > On 3/9/19 3:36 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> I would assume this also applies to gns proxy and dns2gns? >> >>> On 9. Mar 2019, at 15:32, Christi

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Updating my git work-in-progess branch?

> On 16. Mar 2019, at 21:17, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > On 3/16/19 11:39 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> >> >>> On 16. Mar 2019, at 02:18, Christian Grothoff >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 3/15/19 5:06 PM, Corvus Corax wrote: >>

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Binding scheduler with another event loop, gnunet-search and gnunet-publish metadata

> On 22. Mar 2019, at 17:37, Amirouche Boubekki wrote: > > Hello all, > > > A) I would like to know how to bind gnunet event loop > aka. scheduler to another event loop that will be > the main event loop without relying on threads. > The reason is in scheme I can use call/cc to

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

Yes, I do not think this is a good idea at all and is contrary to the initial motivation of this thread. We already agree the from a user perspective, the packages (.deb/.rpm et al) should ideally be split into the respective services/applications and, of course, also Gtk+. For sane dependency

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

and while I actually think they have VALID arguments in doing so, GNUnet does not. > On 8. Feb 2019, at 15:00, Schanzenbach, Martin > wrote: > > Yes, I do not think this is a good idea at all and is contrary to the initial > motivation of this thread. > > We already

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

I have some inline comments as well below, but let us bring this discussion down to a more practical consensus maybe. I think we are arguing too much in the extremes and that is not helpful. I am not saying we should compartmentalise GNUnet into the tiniest possible components. It's just that I

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

> On 9. Feb 2019, at 17:13, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > On 2/9/19 5:04 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> I have some inline comments as well below, but let us bring this discussion >> down to a more practical consensus maybe. >> I think we are argui

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

such a platform needs (or devs need to build applications). GNUnet can become an umbrella project as well if we can agree on that. Under this umbrella will exist: The core platform and any app/service that wishes to share the umbrella project resources (so atm all of them). > Le sam. 9 févr.

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Mantis

Hi, I think you need to go here: https://gnunet.org/bugs/view_all_bug_page.php And then select category "webpage". Then click "Apply filter" BR > On 10. Feb 2019, at 08:11, Catonano wrote: > > I don't remember how to search for tickets marked with "website" > I don't find a "search" field >

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

> On 9. Feb 2019, at 22:33, n...@n0.is wrote: > > Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 9.8K bytes: >> >> >>> On 9. Feb 2019, at 20:32, Amirouche Boubekki >>> wrote: >>> >>> I think splitting the codebase will be a pain for gnunet. >&

Re: [GNUnet-developers] gnunet-gtk

The Gtk ui is in a separate repository: https://gnunet.org/git/gnunet-gtk.git > On 10. Feb 2019, at 07:45, Catonano wrote: > > reading about gns zones, I see the user chapter of the handbook mentions > gnunet-gtk for creating a zone > > There are several commands in my path starting with

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

ME is famous for its bazaar model of >> development and also famous for the adoption of meson (maybe even its >> inception) or its previous incarnation jhbuild. Anyway, even if GNOME >> and GNU (which is also a bazaar) success is appealing, gnunet is not GNU >> or GNO

Re: [GNUnet-developers] gnunet-gtk

The gnunet-gtk are and have always been a mess. But let me try: do you have gtk+-3.0-dev installed? (next up will probably be glade2 or sth) > On 10. Feb 2019, at 09:21, Catonano wrote: > > > > Il giorno dom 10 feb 2019 alle ore 08:36 Schanzenbach, Martin > ha scr

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

> On 11. Feb 2019, at 19:26, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > On 2/11/19 6:47 PM, Christian Grothoff wrote: >> Am I missing an argument here? > > Let me answer my own question (cooking is great...). > > Actually, one good way I could see separating things is by > responsibility boundary. I

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

t my main argument that build times are too long. My argument is that build time is long, and for my service (reclaim) it is not necessary at all to build everything when I fix a bug (locally that does not affect me, but it does affect the CI). > > On 2/11/19 4:34 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote:

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

/10/19 10:50 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> That is also the point. They should not care. Do you really think >> Gtk+ devs care if they break API/ABI and gnunet-gtk fails to build? > > Yes, they do, and they should. > > > > signature.as

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

> On 10. Feb 2019, at 11:14, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > Signed PGP part > On 2/10/19 10:06 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> Maybe let me wrap this up for now because I do not see a point in arguing >> further and there does not seem to be consensus: >>

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

> On 10. Feb 2019, at 13:56, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > On 2/10/19 11:59 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >>> --disable-FEATURE flats for configure where then src/Makefile.am simply >>> doesn't enter certain subdirectories would certainly have my approval here.

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

> On 10. Feb 2019, at 10:36, Florian Dold wrote: > > On 2/10/19 1:55 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: > >>> An example for such >>> tooling would be Googles's Repo tool >>> (https://source.android.com/setup/develop / >>> https://source.andr

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

ler and do not contain functionality that reclaim does not need, but this does not seem to have consensus so I have no solution for this atm. BR > On 10. Feb 2019, at 09:25, Schanzenbach, Martin > wrote: > > Signed PGP part > > >> On 10. Feb 2019, at 08:46, F

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

> On 10. Feb 2019, at 11:59, Schanzenbach, Martin > wrote: > > Signed PGP part > > >> On 10. Feb 2019, at 11:14, Christian Grothoff wrote: >> >> Signed PGP part >> On 2/10/19 10:06 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >>> Maybe let m

Re: [GNUnet-developers] gnunet-gtk

https://packages.ubuntu.com/bionic/libgtk-3-dev ? > On 10. Feb 2019, at 09:54, Catonano wrote: > > > > Il giorno dom 10 feb 2019 alle ore 09:52 Catonano ha > scritto: > > > Il giorno dom 10 feb 2019 alle ore 09:27 Schanzenbach, Martin > ha scritto: > T

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

> On 10. Feb 2019, at 22:28, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > Signed PGP part > On 2/10/19 9:25 PM, Hartmut Goebel wrote: >> Am 10.02.19 um 17:43 schrieb Christian Grothoff: >> >> IMHO gnunet should be split into repos like this: >> >> - framework ("core") > > Should framework include the

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

istian Grothoff wrote: > > On 2/11/19 8:40 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >>> Then please explain how you want to slice the dependencies on the 3 >>> (possibly more in future, MariaDB says hello) databases and the Gtk+ >>> logic. Note that each of these multiplies

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

; repo again. BR > On 8. Feb 2019, at 15:53, t3sserakt wrote: > > Hey *, > > I also think it is better to have several repos. I can not tell how to split > up the gnunet.git repo, but we should not merge gnunet-gtk.git into > gnunet.git. > > cheers > > t3sse

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

Anyway, I should get back to actual coding and cleaning, maybe we should > resume this discussion at the GNUnet Hacker Meeting? At least I suspect > that might be more productive and I don't see any urgency here. Yes, this is fundamental stuff and we cannot solve this in one sweep anyway. But

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

eople who are > already hacking on the code are not the ones with usability issues. See above. Users should be made to think in packages anyway. Only devs should care about repos. I agree with the docs, but my argument is that the docs will stay confusing if they try to explain to a user that he ne

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Proposal: Make GNUnet Great Again?

s (and from trying to get students to install > stuff). Fewer steps == better. Splitting up the sources may _seem_ to > make the structure more obvious for developers, but people who are > already hacking on the code are not the ones with usability issues. > > My 2 cents > > Chr

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Missing libgnunetnt.so.0

I think I encountered this error on macos today. It doesn't even build because of a faulty build definition of a transport plugin. Try 395be9a8fb85d172dcbb06826aed8b5b29ceeac2 BR > On 1. Feb 2019, at 18:41, t3sserakt wrote: > > Signed PGP part > Hello *, > > I have a lot of these error

Re: [GNUnet-developers] estimated 0.11 release or next rc?

Hi, > On 28. Jan 2019, at 00:45, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > Signed PGP part > On 1/28/19 12:28 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> Hi dvn, >> >> I had a discussion wrt gitlab offlist with grothoff as well. >> tl;dr I am also a proponent of gitlab in

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues

> On 7. Apr 2019, at 11:11, Schanzenbach, Martin > wrote: > > > >> On 7. Apr 2019, at 11:02, Christian Grothoff wrote: >> >> On 4/7/19 8:33 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >>> Contributors should be able to do anything they want in their ow

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues

> On 6. Apr 2019, at 21:47, Florian Dold wrote: > > Signed PGP part > Thanks for taking the time to set this up. So far some things don't > seem right yet: > > There is a massive security problem. Everybody (!!) is able to create > accounts and set their password, *without* being the owner

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues

> On 7. Apr 2019, at 11:02, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > On 4/7/19 8:33 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> Contributors should be able to do anything they want in their own >> namespaces including committing code that does not compile (e.g. for >> their gnunet.gi

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Discussion, and Help Wanted: Moving to Gitlab for Git, CI, and Issues

> On 7. Apr 2019, at 12:47, Florian Dold wrote: > > On 4/7/19 8:33 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> Contributors should be able to do anything they want in their own namespaces >> including committing code that does not compile (e.g. for their gnunet.git >> f

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Missing gnunet_reclaim_plugin.h

Sorry, fixed. > On 15. Apr 2019, at 11:00, LRN wrote: > > Signed PGP part > That file is mentioned in src/include/Makefile.am, but it's not in git. > > > signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ GNUnet-developers mailing list

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Coding style clang-format

> On 15. Apr 2019, at 10:53, Hartmut Goebel > wrote: > > Am 15.04.19 um 10:02 schrieb Schanzenbach, Martin: >> FYI I added a clang-format at "contrib/conf/editors/clang-format". > > I'm curious about this, since the development guide says: "We follow

Re: [GNUnet-developers] Coding style clang-format

;char * foo;", weirdly formatted macros and overly >> long lines. Emacs won't fix those. >> >> Please also think of people (students!) that don't have your exact setup >> and want to contribute to GNUnet without having to use Emacs, and >> without somebody having

Re: [GNUnet-developers] clang formatting discussion

rding with permission)... > > On 4/17/19 3:58 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> The thing is clang-format is built with the most common styles in >> mind (including GNU). It does not cover every little corner case and >> does not want to in order to keep

Re: [GNUnet-developers] clang formatting discussion

t; On 17. Apr 2019, at 23:25, Schanzenbach, Martin > wrote: > > Signed PGP part > > >> On 17. Apr 2019, at 21:08, Christian Grothoff wrote: >> >> Signed PGP part >> From private discussion with Martin where I pointed out a few style >> issues I

  1   2   3   4   >