On 02/13/2010 05:19 PM, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Thomas Sachau <m...@tommyserver.de> wrote: > >> If i remember it right, there was a goal to get packagers for freenet for >> different distros. If you >> really want to force GWT as a dependency without a way to compile it from >> source, you will make it much harder to even find people, who will try to do >> the needed work. >> I can tell you that even the current set of dependencies is not easy to >> package, but GWT is a big, complete mess, all other freenet dependencies are >> a no-brainer against it. >> > > People still use Gentoo? ;-P
Sure :-P > Seriously, I never understood the point of building everything from source - > Gentoo is pointless masochism IMHO, which probably explains its steady > decline in popularity, I hardly ever see it any more. I think, the number of users did not decline, just more users for other distros like ubuntu, which might decline the popularity percent in some stats. It has its advantages with the good package manager, you can easily adjust the behaviour, package handling and dependencies in great depth and based on that there easy ways to e.g. include patches. There are enough people around, who like that. In addition, i bet you often dont ask the people about their distro, so you may not even know about those, who do. ;-) > > GWT's output is itself source code, so for Gentoo presumably we can just > include that, rather than having to generate the JavaScript source from the > original. There is another advantage with Gentoo: I can use an adjusted ebuild to compile and install freenet with some changes i want to test, in addition to personal changes, which i might want to keep local or which are not accepted upstream. Since freenet does currently build from source, this is easily possible. But if you use the "compiled" output of GWT, then it will be harder to keep local changes or to test changes, which i want to push, since those will have to be in the original source, so i again need to have GWT around. And for GWT, the same reasons apply, why i want it from source and not binary. > > >> Uh, i thought, freenet was about a way to securely and anonymously send and >> get data. If your target on those people, who want that, then you should >> also remember that there have been enough issues with javascripts (exploits >> and other nasty things on normal websites), so many users at least >> use something like NoScript, which blocks javascript by default. >> > > You can create exception rules with NoScript - right? This might currently be save, if every dev does create perfect code, but what happens, when a freesite can exploit the javascript? This might even be a bigger problem, when there is more content allowed, like a restricted set of javascript or similar. Maybe keeping FProxy as an alternative for those people, who dont want or are not able to use javascript? >> I did not even speak about those people, who run freenet on a server and >> use some text-based browser without javascript to access the WI. >> > > Anyway, Pupok has proposed that she could also use Dojo, although she isn't > as familiar with it as GWT, and it should be able to degrade gracefully. I currently cannot say anything about Dojo, it also seems not to be packaged for Gentoo, so i would have to do that too, but dont know the amount of work for it.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
