Re: [freenet-dev] High Speed Links
On 31/10/15 21:18, Bert Massop wrote: > On 31-10-15 17:27, Bob Ham wrote: >> On Sat, 2015-10-14 at 20:22 +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: >>> I think it's time for us all to take a step back and have a serious >>> conversation about where we are, and where we are going. >> I (as pintu) asked this question on IRC a little while back, I think >> it's worth sharing that log. Here is an executive summary: >> >> [omitted outdated chat log of anonymous user wasting developer time] > I've read your chat log and learned exactly nothing new about where we > are and where we are going. Nor did I learn how documenting a protocol, > what you seem to be advocating endlessly, would help just the slightest > bit in getting there. > > Mind you, most Freenet developers are volunteers who all share a common > goal of making Freenet work better — be it by contributing changes to > the core for making the network faster and more secure, by adding > features providing for new use cases, or by improving the overall user > experience. > > If you share the same goal, you could be one of them. Please feel > invited to contribute by submitting pull requests for the patches you > write, or if you are unable to code, by filing clear and concise bug > reports for parts of Freenet that don't work well yet. Feel free to document the protocol too! We definitely need more documentation. Just don't demand that we freeze it just to keep the docs up to date. It is not yet at a point where we could declare it stable; there are major problems that still need fixing at the protocol level. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] High Speed Links
On 31-10-15 17:27, Bob Ham wrote: > On Sat, 2015-10-14 at 20:22 +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: >> I think it's time for us all to take a step back and have a serious >> conversation about where we are, and where we are going. > > I (as pintu) asked this question on IRC a little while back, I think > it's worth sharing that log. Here is an executive summary: > > [omitted outdated chat log of anonymous user wasting developer time] I've read your chat log and learned exactly nothing new about where we are and where we are going. Nor did I learn how documenting a protocol, what you seem to be advocating endlessly, would help just the slightest bit in getting there. Mind you, most Freenet developers are volunteers who all share a common goal of making Freenet work better — be it by contributing changes to the core for making the network faster and more secure, by adding features providing for new use cases, or by improving the overall user experience. If you share the same goal, you could be one of them. Please feel invited to contribute by submitting pull requests for the patches you write, or if you are unable to code, by filing clear and concise bug reports for parts of Freenet that don't work well yet. — Bert signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet debian package
On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Florent Daigniere < nextg...@freenetproject.org> wrote: > What's the part you don't understand? > Can we please try to maintain a level of civility? Nobody wants to work for free only to be insulted. And yes, I recognize that my own record probably isn't perfect here. Ian. ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
Re: [freenet-dev] Project Status
On Sat, 2015-10-14 at 20:22 +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: > I think it's time for us all to take a step back and have a serious > conversation about where we are, and where we are going. I (as pintu) asked this question on IRC a little while back, I think it's worth sharing that log. Here is an executive summary: 15:46 < pintu> there is no underlying strategy 15:46 < pintu> there is some software that works-ish 15:46 < pintu> and some people making changes to it 15:47 < pintu> there is no clear strategy on how to get from here to a robust, published protocol enabling censorship resistant publishing 15:47 < pintu> right? 15:47 < TheSeeker> and until something better comes along, Freenet is still the best option that exists. Here is the abridged log with activity outside the conversation omitted: --- Log opened Thu May 08 13:58:12 2014 13:58 -!- pintu [n...@50-197-126-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #freenet 13:58 -!- Irssi: #freenet: Total of 74 nicks [8 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 66 normal] 13:58 -!- Irssi: Join to #freenet was synced in 1 secs 14:08 < pintu> https://wiki.freenetproject.org/Roadmap/0.8 14:08 < pintu> "This page was last modified on 23 July 2011" 14:09 < pintu> where is freenet going? 14:09 < niqnaq> abandonware 14:15 < pintu> niqnaq: are you serious? 14:15 < pintu> "Our current balance is $35023.31." 14:15 < pintu> (30th March 2014) Freenet 0.7.5 build 1461 released 14:15 < pintu> seems to not be going towards abandonware 14:16 < TheSeeker> things will hopefully pick up this summer. 14:18 < pintu> what protocol does freenet use? 14:29 < TheSeeker> the freenet protocol? 14:30 < greycat> Last I heard (which may be very out of date), the node-to-node protocol runs over UDP. 14:42 < ArneBab> pintu: we’re currently working on the plugins and applications. 14:59 < pintu> greycat: what is "the node-to-node protocol"? where is it documented? 15:00 < greycat> https://wiki.freenetproject.org/Node_protocol 15:01 < pintu> that's it? 15:01 < pintu> tha's not documentation, that's just some labels 15:01 < greycat> That's all I know of at the moment. I'm not up to date on this. 15:01 <@operhiem1> I'm not aware of protocol documentation either, but I haven't worked on it. 15:01 < pintu> I don't understand 15:02 <@operhiem1> Ultimately I fear the best documentation we have to offer on that is its implementation. 15:02 < pintu> how can freenet grow if the protocol isn't documented? 15:02 < pintu> right 15:02 < pintu> I see now 15:02 < pintu> 14:09 < niqnaq> abandonware 15:02 <@operhiem1> It hasn't been growing much. 15:02 < pintu> right 15:02 <@operhiem1> pintu: Doesn't that seem at least a little impolite? 15:03 <@operhiem1> Abandonware means no one is working on it. People are working on it. 15:03 < TheSeeker> The protocol isn't documented because it's still alpha and they don't want alternative implementations screwign things up and making things impossible to debug ... 15:03 < pintu> operhiem1: I'm not sure what you think is impolite 15:03 <@operhiem1> pintu: Maybe I'm misreading your tone. Never mind. 15:04 < pintu> regardless, the fact that the protocol isn't documented means that the ecosystem around freenet can only stagnate 15:04 <@operhiem1> TheSeeker: My fear with an alternative implementation is that there wouldn't be enough momentum behind it to reach feature parity with the existing one. 15:04 < TheSeeker> niqnaq was the one saying freenet is abandonware ... 15:04 <@operhiem1> pintu: That may indeed be true. 15:04 < pintu> hence, I see now why niqnaq said that the place freenet is going is abandonware 15:04 <@operhiem1> pintu: How does one document a protocol? 15:05 < TheSeeker> RFC? 15:05 < pintu> operhiem1: see these for many examples: http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html 15:05 < pintu> I don't understand 15:05 < TheSeeker> problem is that the protocol is subject to radical change at any time. 15:06 <@operhiem1> Documenting a specific negtype should be fine though. 15:07 < pintu> TheSeeker: how can people have set up an auto-update infrastructure for a production network.. and yet consider the protocol to be alpha? 15:07 < TheSeeker> do negtypes dictate the message formatting? or just the crypto setup? 15:07 <@operhiem1> That said I'm not sure what direct benefit I see from documentation. Maybe I just lack vision here but I lean towards shorter-term stuff with direct tangible results. 15:07 < pintu> it was alpha when it was being simulated 15:07 <@operhiem1> Nevertheless I will add it to my list of stuff to get to. 15:07 < pintu> then it was beta 15:07 < pintu> now it's a production system 15:07 < TheSeeker> because freenet clearly doesn't work yet, and is FAR from feature complete? 15:08 <@operhiem1> ^ 15:08 < pintu> you don't have over-the-wire auto-updates in an alpha system 15:08 <@operhiem1> This one does. 15:08 < TheSeeker> beta is feature complete, production is stable and able to be used to make money woth :P 15:08 <@nextgens> it's been a choice 15:0
Re: [freenet-dev] High Speed Links
On Sat, 2015-10-14 at 20:22 +0100, Ian Clarke wrote: > I think it's time for us all to take a step back and have a serious > conversation about where we are, and where we are going. I (as pintu) asked this question on IRC a little while back, I think it's worth sharing that log. Here is an executive summary: 15:46 < pintu> there is no underlying strategy 15:46 < pintu> there is some software that works-ish 15:46 < pintu> and some people making changes to it 15:47 < pintu> there is no clear strategy on how to get from here to a robust, published protocol enabling censorship resistant publishing 15:47 < pintu> right? 15:47 < TheSeeker> and until something better comes along, Freenet is still the best option that exists. Here is the abridged log with activity outside the conversation omitted: --- Log opened Thu May 08 13:58:12 2014 13:58 -!- pintu [n...@50-197-126-28-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net] has joined #freenet 13:58 -!- Irssi: #freenet: Total of 74 nicks [8 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 66 normal] 13:58 -!- Irssi: Join to #freenet was synced in 1 secs 14:08 < pintu> https://wiki.freenetproject.org/Roadmap/0.8 14:08 < pintu> "This page was last modified on 23 July 2011" 14:09 < pintu> where is freenet going? 14:09 < niqnaq> abandonware 14:15 < pintu> niqnaq: are you serious? 14:15 < pintu> "Our current balance is $35023.31." 14:15 < pintu> (30th March 2014) Freenet 0.7.5 build 1461 released 14:15 < pintu> seems to not be going towards abandonware 14:16 < TheSeeker> things will hopefully pick up this summer. 14:18 < pintu> what protocol does freenet use? 14:29 < TheSeeker> the freenet protocol? 14:30 < greycat> Last I heard (which may be very out of date), the node-to-node protocol runs over UDP. 14:42 < ArneBab> pintu: we’re currently working on the plugins and applications. 14:59 < pintu> greycat: what is "the node-to-node protocol"? where is it documented? 15:00 < greycat> https://wiki.freenetproject.org/Node_protocol 15:01 < pintu> that's it? 15:01 < pintu> tha's not documentation, that's just some labels 15:01 < greycat> That's all I know of at the moment. I'm not up to date on this. 15:01 <@operhiem1> I'm not aware of protocol documentation either, but I haven't worked on it. 15:01 < pintu> I don't understand 15:02 <@operhiem1> Ultimately I fear the best documentation we have to offer on that is its implementation. 15:02 < pintu> how can freenet grow if the protocol isn't documented? 15:02 < pintu> right 15:02 < pintu> I see now 15:02 < pintu> 14:09 < niqnaq> abandonware 15:02 <@operhiem1> It hasn't been growing much. 15:02 < pintu> right 15:02 <@operhiem1> pintu: Doesn't that seem at least a little impolite? 15:03 <@operhiem1> Abandonware means no one is working on it. People are working on it. 15:03 < TheSeeker> The protocol isn't documented because it's still alpha and they don't want alternative implementations screwign things up and making things impossible to debug ... 15:03 < pintu> operhiem1: I'm not sure what you think is impolite 15:03 <@operhiem1> pintu: Maybe I'm misreading your tone. Never mind. 15:04 < pintu> regardless, the fact that the protocol isn't documented means that the ecosystem around freenet can only stagnate 15:04 <@operhiem1> TheSeeker: My fear with an alternative implementation is that there wouldn't be enough momentum behind it to reach feature parity with the existing one. 15:04 < TheSeeker> niqnaq was the one saying freenet is abandonware ... 15:04 <@operhiem1> pintu: That may indeed be true. 15:04 < pintu> hence, I see now why niqnaq said that the place freenet is going is abandonware 15:04 <@operhiem1> pintu: How does one document a protocol? 15:05 < TheSeeker> RFC? 15:05 < pintu> operhiem1: see these for many examples: http://www.ietf.org/rfc.html 15:05 < pintu> I don't understand 15:05 < TheSeeker> problem is that the protocol is subject to radical change at any time. 15:06 <@operhiem1> Documenting a specific negtype should be fine though. 15:07 < pintu> TheSeeker: how can people have set up an auto-update infrastructure for a production network.. and yet consider the protocol to be alpha? 15:07 < TheSeeker> do negtypes dictate the message formatting? or just the crypto setup? 15:07 <@operhiem1> That said I'm not sure what direct benefit I see from documentation. Maybe I just lack vision here but I lean towards shorter-term stuff with direct tangible results. 15:07 < pintu> it was alpha when it was being simulated 15:07 <@operhiem1> Nevertheless I will add it to my list of stuff to get to. 15:07 < pintu> then it was beta 15:07 < pintu> now it's a production system 15:07 < TheSeeker> because freenet clearly doesn't work yet, and is FAR from feature complete? 15:08 <@operhiem1> ^ 15:08 < pintu> you don't have over-the-wire auto-updates in an alpha system 15:08 <@operhiem1> This one does. 15:08 < TheSeeker> beta is feature complete, production is stable and able to be used to make money woth :P 15:08 <@nextgens> it's been a choice 15:0
Re: [freenet-dev] Freenet debian package
On 29/10/15 09:10, dean wrote: >> I've temporarily disabled the GWT requirement. This is easier to maintain >> than bundling GWT, but in the long run (i.e. to meet Debian policy) we will >> need to: >> >> - package GWT for debian again (very hard), or >> - remove the relevant stuff that requires GWT from fred > > So are we just checking it out? > The pre-built javascript is committed into the fred.git repo. Previously in debian.git we were cleaning this up before the build, which automatically triggers a build using the GWT jars. For the time being, I've disabled that cleaning step. >> - We need to update libbcprov-java in Debian. I think it's much better to do >> this, than to bundle our own. Updating a Debian package usually not hard, if >> you read up on the relevant docs beforehand. It is much easier than bundling >> extra libs in another package. > > This is my next mission, I never planned to keep this bundled with > freenet just a quick hack. This needs to be fixed ASAP, this package is > unusable without it. Got a lot of doc's to read... > OK, let me know if you need help, or someone to sponsor your package once you're done. >> - We shouldn't use legacy-29 in the Debian package. Someone should work on >> dropping legacy-29 from fred, rather than backporting support for it into >> other products. When built with the master branch of contrib, the debian >> packaging will use the latest version of everything in Debian, including the >> wrapper. There should be no version mismatch, since we automatically >> generate /etc/init.d/freenet-daemon during the build, from the latest >> version of the wrapper. > > Agreed. > > Why does the package use fred/build-clean.xml instead of build.xml? > build-clean.xml contains some more fine-grained targets if you want to clean pre-built things such as the GWT JS. There might be other things too. It may be unnecessary if/after we remove GWT. X -- GPG: 4096R/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE git://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git ___ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
