Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUnet project & organizational challenges

As I understood this really has nothing to do with the eV or the organisational form (in legal terms). It was more related to how to organise processes within the GNUnet project/community. Regarding the eV/making profit: AFAIK the GUNnet eV is already _for_ profit even if it does not actively

[GNUnet-developers] gitlab gnunet group

Hi, did anyone on this list register the group "gnunet" on gitlab and make it private? It would be great to use it for a CI flow. Else we have to assume it was squatted :/ BR Martin signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___

Re: [GNUnet-developers] FOSDEM 2019

Are you from the past? :D > On 20. Oct 2018, at 20:21, hellekin wrote: > > Hey there, > > the Decentralized Internet & Privacy Devroom CFP is out! > > https://lists.fosdem.org/pipermail/fosdem/2018q4/002769.html > > Who's coming to BXL? > > == > hk > >

Re: [GNUnet-developers] GNUnet Hacker Meeting Agenda

Dito :) > On 3. Jun 2019, at 15:09, Bernd Fix wrote: > > Signed PGP part > On 6/1/19 6:06 PM, Christian Grothoff wrote: >> Tuesday: >> * Focus: GNS >> - Ascension (rexxnor, presentation @ 11am) >> - GNS-Go project (Bernd, Schanzen) >> - GNUnet packaging for distros (all) > > Is it possible

[GNUnet-developers] [info-GNUnet] GNUnet 0.11.4 released

Dear all, We are pleased to announce the release of GNUnet 0.11.4. This is a bugfix release for 0.11.3, mostly fixing a few build issues. In terms of usability, users should be aware that there are still a large number of known open issues in particular with respect to ease of use, but also some

Re: [GNUnet-developers] gnunet-arm behaviour

> On 30. Apr 2019, at 20:26, Schanzenbach, Martin > wrote: > > Signed PGP part > > >> On 30. Apr 2019, at 20:00, Christian Grothoff wrote: >> >> Signed PGP part >> On 4/30/19 2:08 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >

[GNUnet-developers] gnunet-arm behaviour

Hi, everytime I show somebody how to start gnunet, the behaviour of gnunet-arm seems to be a major pain point because it exhibits two behaviours which, combined, are quite odd. Those two are: 1. gnunet-arm -s does not hang but return the user to the terminal 2. Logging by default is in that

Re: [GNUnet-developers] clang formatting discussion

> On 18. Apr 2019, at 10:50, n...@n0.is wrote: > > Schanzenbach, Martin transcribed 4.5K bytes: >> >> >>> On 17. Apr 2019, at 21:08, Christian Grothoff wrote: >>> >>> Signed PGP part >>> From private discussion with Martin where I po

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

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] [Update] Coding style clang-format

) give a warning (with -Wall) when you put an assignment in a condition statement, maybe we don't need to put this in the style anymore? Readability would be the primary benefit, correct formatting secondary. Opinions? > On 16. Apr 2019, at 11:32, Schanzenbach, Martin > wrote: > &g

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

enbach, Martin > wrote: > > Signed PGP part > > >> On 16. Apr 2019, at 10:54, Christian Grothoff wrote: >> >> Signed PGP part >> On 4/16/19 10:48 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >>> I added your changes with two notes: >>> >>&

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

> On 16. Apr 2019, at 10:54, Christian Grothoff wrote: > > Signed PGP part > On 4/16/19 10:48 AM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> I added your changes with two notes: >> >> 1. SpaceAfterLogicalNot: true => This option does not seems to exist >>

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

exact setup >> and want to contribute to GNUnet without having to use Emacs, and >> without somebody having to do manual code review for code style. At >> least Guix has some helper script that formats the code using Emacs >> under the hood, without having to know Emacs! >

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] 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] 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] 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 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] 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 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 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

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] 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] 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] 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] 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] Updating my git work-in-progess branch?

> On 15. Mar 2019, at 09:45, Hartmut Goebel > wrote: > > > Am 15.03.19 um 09:19 schrieb Christian Grothoff: >> Force pushes are never allowed, you must always rebase. > > Rebase also requiers a force push since the branch is not continuing the > prior history. > > I'm used to provide a

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] GNUNET_PROGRAM* option evaluation does not work as expected

t; On 3/13/19 9:03 PM, Schanzenbach, Martin wrote: >> 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. > > > signat

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] 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-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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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

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] 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] 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?

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?

> 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?

> 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 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] 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?

/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 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] 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?

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] 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?

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] 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] 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?

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] 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?

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?

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?

; 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?

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?

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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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] 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?

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] 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

[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] 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] 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

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] 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

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] 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

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

[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] 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] 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

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] 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] 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] 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] 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] [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] 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

<    1   2   3   4   >