I didn't mean that. If you run a darknet-only node, updating over http(s) will blow up your cover. Plus, such requests are easily identifiable and blockable at any level (country, firewall, ISP, ?).
On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ximin Luo <infinity0 at gmx.com> wrote: > No, it's fine. APT does automatic verification of signatures. We can publish > the key over HTTPS, or to a keyserver. It also lets you configure automatic > updates. > > X > > On 01/08/10 15:40, Romain Dalmaso wrote: >> >> This is risky. Unlike updating over the freenet network, it's not >> secure at all and it's not automatic. >> >> On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Ximin Luo<infinity0 at gmx.com> ?wrote: >>> >>> On 31/07/10 18:32, Matthew Toseland wrote: >>>> >>>> The fundamental, irresolvable problem with worrying about the FHS is >>>> that >>>> we >>>> need to be able to update our own executable code. Hence Freenet is >>>> installed under a single user, binaries, logs, and everything else. This >>>> is >>>> true now by accident or design on unix, and it will be true on Windows >>>> very >>>> soon as well because of nasty installer issues with trying to make it a >>>> service. >>>> >>> >>> I can go set up a freenet APT repository, it's really simple and requires >>> no >>> extra daemon, just static HTTP files. (After we get this directory >>> structure >>> sorted out and some build-deb scripts, of course.) That will take care of >>> the auto-update issue on Debian and Ubuntu. >>> >>> X >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Devl mailing list >>> Devl at freenetproject.org >>> http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Devl mailing list >> Devl at freenetproject.org >> http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl >
