Daniel Cheng skrev:
>>> System service on Windows:
>>>
>>> It is increasingly clear that our only options on Windows are to run as a
>>> service under LocalSystem, or to run as a service under a dedicated Freenet
>>> user, mostly because of permissions problems.
>>>
>>>
>> Can anyone
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 3:46 AM, Zero3 wrote:
> Matthew Toseland skrev:
>> Many things have been decided, a few remain. Nextgens' main concerns turn out
>> to relate to where things are built and who signs them.
>>
>> Windows installer:
>>
>> The Windows installer should not be built on emu. An
Daniel Cheng skrev:
System service on Windows:
It is increasingly clear that our only options on Windows are to run as a
service under LocalSystem, or to run as a service under a dedicated Freenet
user, mostly because of permissions problems.
Can anyone (nextgens?) quickly sum up
Matthew Toseland skrev:
> Many things have been decided, a few remain. Nextgens' main concerns turn out
> to relate to where things are built and who signs them.
>
> Windows installer:
>
> The Windows installer should not be built on emu. An online installer could
> either be built on Windows or
Many things have been decided, a few remain. Nextgens' main concerns turn out
to relate to where things are built and who signs them.
Windows installer:
The Windows installer should not be built on emu. An online installer could
either be built on Windows or on *nix. An offline installer could
Florent Daigni?re skrev:
> * Matthew Toseland [2008-12-16 00:28:54]:
>
>
>>> I'm not arguing we should invest $ into getting a signed
>>>
>> certificate. I
>>
>>> am sure we have professional developers here who do have a valid,
>>> trusted certificate.
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Zero3 wrote:
> No, it isn't. My main point is providing an installer that works
> independent of the website (arguments listed earlier).
Would someone mind doing an installer redux redux (ie. remind us what
the current points of contention are)?
Ian.
--
Ian
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 4:07 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Monday 15 December 2008 16:29, Zero3 wrote:
>>
>> >>> 2. Whether it should run from the startup group, by the logged-in user,
>> >>>
>> > rather
>> >
>> >>> than as a system service running in its own user.
>> >>>
>> >>> RESOLUTION: We
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Zero3 wrote:
> Matthew Toseland skrev:
>> On Saturday 13 December 2008 17:40, Zero3 wrote:
>>
>>> Matthew Toseland skrev:
>>>
Issues for the installer. Both Zero3 and nextgens seem to have decided to
sulk, so I'll arbitrarily decide these issues where
* Matthew Toseland [2008-12-16 00:28:54]:
> > > > > > I'm not arguing we should invest $ into getting a signed
> certificate. I
> > > > > > am sure we have professional developers here who do have a valid,
> > > > > > trusted certificate.
> > > > >
> > > > > Whom we can trust? Such as?
> > > >
On Tuesday 16 December 2008 00:24, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not arguing we should invest $ into getting a signed
certificate. I
> > > > > am sure we have professional developers here who do have a valid,
> > > > > trusted certificate.
> > > >
> > > > Whom we can trust?
On Monday 15 December 2008 23:58, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Matthew Toseland [2008-12-13 19:20:21]:
>
> > On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:57, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > > * Matthew Toseland [2008-12-13 18:01:03]:
> > >
> > > > On Saturday 13 December 2008 17:22, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
>
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Zero3 ze...@zerosplayground.dk wrote:
No, it isn't. My main point is providing an installer that works
independent of the website (arguments listed earlier).
Would someone mind doing an installer redux redux (ie. remind us what
the current points of contention
Florent Daignière skrev:
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2008-12-16 00:28:54]:
I'm not arguing we should invest $ into getting a signed
certificate. I
am sure we have professional developers here who do have a valid,
trusted certificate.
Many things have been decided, a few remain. Nextgens' main concerns turn out
to relate to where things are built and who signs them.
Windows installer:
The Windows installer should not be built on emu. An online installer could
either be built on Windows or on *nix. An offline installer could
* Matthew Toseland [2008-12-13 19:20:21]:
> On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:57, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > * Matthew Toseland [2008-12-13 18:01:03]:
> >
> > > On Saturday 13 December 2008 17:22, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > > > > > In any case we are NOT protected from the compromise of emu
* Ian Clarke [2008-12-15 14:35:19]:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > Nextgens would certainly object to running Microsoft provided binaries on
> > emu,
> > and I can see his point.
>
> ...which is?
>
As explained for the Nth+1 time:
Four main reasons:
On Monday 15 December 2008 16:29, Zero3 wrote:
>
> >>> 2. Whether it should run from the startup group, by the logged-in user,
> >>>
> > rather
> >
> >>> than as a system service running in its own user.
> >>>
> >>> RESOLUTION: We should continue to run Freenet as a system service.
>
Matthew Toseland skrev:
> On Saturday 13 December 2008 17:40, Zero3 wrote:
>
>> Matthew Toseland skrev:
>>
>>> Issues for the installer. Both Zero3 and nextgens seem to have decided to
>>> sulk, so I'll arbitrarily decide these issues where there is deadlock and
>>>
> if
>
>>>
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> Nextgens would certainly object to running Microsoft provided binaries on emu,
> and I can see his point.
...which is?
We're the Freenet Project, not the "anti-Microsoft" project. If using
some Microsoft code helps us to offer a better
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:29 AM, Zero3 wrote:
nextgens and Zero3 to equal degrees.
>>> I hope that's just meant as a joke... :-/
>> It was not intended as a joke at the time.
> Great way of making decisions then :-/
Obviously it was a joke, you people really need to get a grip - this
whole
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
Nextgens would certainly object to running Microsoft provided binaries on emu,
and I can see his point.
...which is?
We're the Freenet Project, not the anti-Microsoft project. If using
some Microsoft code helps
On Monday 15 December 2008 20:35, Ian Clarke wrote:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
Nextgens would certainly object to running Microsoft provided binaries on
emu,
and I can see his point.
...which is?
We're the Freenet Project, not
* Ian Clarke ian.cla...@gmail.com [2008-12-15 14:35:19]:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
Nextgens would certainly object to running Microsoft provided binaries on
emu,
and I can see his point.
...which is?
As explained for the
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2008-12-13 19:20:21]:
On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:57, Florent Daignière wrote:
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2008-12-13 18:01:03]:
On Saturday 13 December 2008 17:22, Florent Daignière wrote:
In any case we are NOT
On Monday 15 December 2008 23:58, Florent Daignière wrote:
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2008-12-13 19:20:21]:
On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:57, Florent Daignière wrote:
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2008-12-13 18:01:03]:
On Saturday 13 December
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2008-12-16 00:14:58]:
On Monday 15 December 2008 23:58, Florent Daignière wrote:
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2008-12-13 19:20:21]:
On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:57, Florent Daignière wrote:
* Matthew Toseland
On Tuesday 16 December 2008 00:24, Florent Daignière wrote:
I'm not arguing we should invest $ into getting a signed
certificate. I
am sure we have professional developers here who do have a valid,
trusted certificate.
Whom we can trust? Such as?
I don't think
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2008-12-16 00:28:54]:
I'm not arguing we should invest $ into getting a signed
certificate. I
am sure we have professional developers here who do have a valid,
trusted certificate.
Whom we can trust? Such as?
I
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 12:29 AM, Zero3 ze...@zerosplayground.dk wrote:
Matthew Toseland skrev:
On Saturday 13 December 2008 17:40, Zero3 wrote:
Matthew Toseland skrev:
Issues for the installer. Both Zero3 and nextgens seem to have decided to
sulk, so I'll arbitrarily decide these issues
On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:57, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Matthew Toseland [2008-12-13 18:01:03]:
>
> > On Saturday 13 December 2008 17:22, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > > > > In any case we are NOT protected from the compromise of emu nor by
the
> > > > > compromise of the key used to
Matthew Toseland skrev:
> Issues for the installer. Both Zero3 and nextgens seem to have decided to
> sulk, so I'll arbitrarily decide these issues where there is deadlock and if
> anyone objects he can reply to this thread with a reasoned argument.
>
>
I'm not sulking as in "to express ill
On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:19, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Saturday 13 December 2008 17:40, Zero3 wrote:
> > Matthew Toseland skrev:
> > > Issues for the installer. Both Zero3 and nextgens seem to have decided
to
> > > sulk, so I'll arbitrarily decide these issues where there is deadlock
On Saturday 13 December 2008 17:40, Zero3 wrote:
> Matthew Toseland skrev:
> > Issues for the installer. Both Zero3 and nextgens seem to have decided to
> > sulk, so I'll arbitrarily decide these issues where there is deadlock and
if
> > anyone objects he can reply to this thread with a
On Saturday 13 December 2008 17:22, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> > > In any case we are NOT protected from the compromise of emu nor by the
> > > compromise of the key used to sign the installer.
> >
> > Exactly. Right now we build both the installers and the jars on emu. If
emu is
> >
> > In any case we are NOT protected from the compromise of emu nor by the
> > compromise of the key used to sign the installer.
>
> Exactly. Right now we build both the installers and the jars on emu. If emu
> is
> compromised, it can supply bogus installers and bogus jars. If we move the
>
On Saturday 13 December 2008 16:11, Florent Daigni?re wrote:
> * Matthew Toseland [2008-12-13 12:21:01]:
>
> > Issues for the installer. Both Zero3 and nextgens seem to have decided to
> > sulk, so I'll arbitrarily decide these issues where there is deadlock and
if
> > anyone objects he can
* Matthew Toseland [2008-12-13 12:21:01]:
> Issues for the installer. Both Zero3 and nextgens seem to have decided to
> sulk, so I'll arbitrarily decide these issues where there is deadlock and if
> anyone objects he can reply to this thread with a reasoned argument.
>
> 1. Whether we should
On Saturday 13 December 2008 12:21, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> 3. Whether to compile and sign the current installer on emu.
>
> Nextgens has suggested that we should sign the installer elsewhere. The
> bytecode could still be verified provided that the dev who builds it builds
> it with
Issues for the installer. Both Zero3 and nextgens seem to have decided to
sulk, so I'll arbitrarily decide these issues where there is deadlock and if
anyone objects he can reply to this thread with a reasoned argument.
1. Whether we should remove all the questions from the current installer,
Issues for the installer. Both Zero3 and nextgens seem to have decided to
sulk, so I'll arbitrarily decide these issues where there is deadlock and if
anyone objects he can reply to this thread with a reasoned argument.
1. Whether we should remove all the questions from the current installer,
On Saturday 13 December 2008 12:21, Matthew Toseland wrote:
3. Whether to compile and sign the current installer on emu.
Nextgens has suggested that we should sign the installer elsewhere. The
bytecode could still be verified provided that the dev who builds it builds
it with appropriate
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2008-12-13 12:21:01]:
Issues for the installer. Both Zero3 and nextgens seem to have decided to
sulk, so I'll arbitrarily decide these issues where there is deadlock and if
anyone objects he can reply to this thread with a reasoned argument.
On Saturday 13 December 2008 16:11, Florent Daignière wrote:
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2008-12-13 12:21:01]:
Issues for the installer. Both Zero3 and nextgens seem to have decided to
sulk, so I'll arbitrarily decide these issues where there is deadlock and
if
anyone
In any case we are NOT protected from the compromise of emu nor by the
compromise of the key used to sign the installer.
Exactly. Right now we build both the installers and the jars on emu. If emu
is
compromised, it can supply bogus installers and bogus jars. If we move the
building
Matthew Toseland skrev:
Issues for the installer. Both Zero3 and nextgens seem to have decided to
sulk, so I'll arbitrarily decide these issues where there is deadlock and if
anyone objects he can reply to this thread with a reasoned argument.
I'm not sulking as in to express ill humor
On Saturday 13 December 2008 17:22, Florent Daignière wrote:
In any case we are NOT protected from the compromise of emu nor by the
compromise of the key used to sign the installer.
Exactly. Right now we build both the installers and the jars on emu. If
emu is
compromised, it can
On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:19, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Saturday 13 December 2008 17:40, Zero3 wrote:
Matthew Toseland skrev:
Issues for the installer. Both Zero3 and nextgens seem to have decided
to
sulk, so I'll arbitrarily decide these issues where there is deadlock
and
if
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2008-12-13 18:01:03]:
On Saturday 13 December 2008 17:22, Florent Daignière wrote:
In any case we are NOT protected from the compromise of emu nor by the
compromise of the key used to sign the installer.
Exactly. Right now we build
On Saturday 13 December 2008 18:57, Florent Daignière wrote:
* Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org [2008-12-13 18:01:03]:
On Saturday 13 December 2008 17:22, Florent Daignière wrote:
In any case we are NOT protected from the compromise of emu nor by
the
compromise of the key
50 matches
Mail list logo
