On 2020-06-28 09:34, Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > Steve Dougherty <[email protected]> writes: > >> I can't speak for Arne but as far as I'm aware the things I mentioned >> in my quoted message still apply: we'd need to write a way for the >> package to update itself over Freenet. > > While I think that this would be ideal, I also think that most users do > not need update over Freenet, since it only gives them a privacy > advantage, when they run full darknet. > > The Gentoo package for example does not update over Freenet. > > The distributions usually do their own quality control and update with a > delay, and while that makes measuring the update-process a bit harder, > it would also give some additional security against a Freenet release > manager going rogue. > > Best wishes, > Arne
Those are all good points. We know that package maintainers may take a while to catch up with the latest releases. There is software that choose not to provide official packages (ie, Calibre). Here are two points (pro and con) about having packages: # Ease of install and update Requiring only a few commands to have a running node would make it easier for new comers to install Freenet and test it out. Updating would also be just a command away. # Outdated nodes If the node update depends on the OS package it's probably that nodes become outdated. It's important to note that self-update goes against the idea of a OS package (ie, updates over Freenet). By that I mean that the package should no modify it's installation by other mean than by the OS package manager. Freenet should be able to determine the installation method and provide (or not) updates over Freenet). I'll take a look at how Google Chrome package does it's magic. So, if we can provide both 1) Ease of install and update and 2) Keep the nodes up-to-date we should go for it. Best regards,
