[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [GNUnet-developers] Shepperd service and guixsd declarative configur
Re: [GNUnet-developers] Shepperd service and guixsd declarative configuration of gnunet
Sat, 2 Apr 2016 18:53:26 +0200
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.6.0
On 04/02/2016 05:51 PM, Nils Gillmann wrote:
> Christian Grothoff <address@hidden> writes:
>> Hi Nils,
>> I don't think it make sense to integrate 'testbed', as that's really for
>> experiments by researchers and never a system service.
> For completeness and not targeting just users, wouldn't it make
> sense to have all options in the system? If you say it's nothing
> which will be used, then I just leave it out as services can
> always be extended.
Testbed is used for testcases ('make check') and for
development/research. But for the latter, the users are also expected to
have the sources installed and work from source, and 'make check' is
also not something users should run for a packaged binary. So I don't
see any use of testbed for users of a Guix package.
>> Most of the "interesting" options you can also manipulate via
>> 'gnunet-setup', but that largely raises the question of how to enable
>> such a tool the Guix-way. We also plan/hope/want to have a well-working
>> option "gnunet-setup -a" (maybe to be moved to gnunet-nat") for
>> automatic configuration of the networking options. The option exists,
>> how well it works is another question (eternal work-in-progress).
> The idea I have, for later, would be gnunet-service guesses and
> discovers some features of gnunet-setup (working nat, etc) or
> someone writes an extension to the service which hooks into
I think the key point is here "for later": this is a big TODO, and not
something to target for the first round.
>> If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask!
> There's this post on guix-devel (it's about other things, but
> also) about the GNUnet description, maybe you want to take some
> minutes if you have time to read into it?
> The description old vs new is here, and I would like some final
> feedback before I email the new description to bug-womb at gnu
> org, obviously the part where versions are compared is not
> intended to be included, but somehow (see thread) it must or
> could be included and reflected.
> (synopsis "Secure, decentralized, peer-to-peer networking framework")
> - (description
> - "GNUnet is a framework for secure peer-to-peer networking that does not
> -use any centralized or otherwise trusted services. Our high-level goal is to
> -provide a strong free software foundation for a global network that provides
> -security and privacy. GNUnet started with an idea for anonymous
> -censorship-resistant file-sharing, but has grown to incorporate other
> -applications as well as many generic building blocks for secure networking
> -applications. In particular, GNUnet now includes the GNU Name System, a
> -privacy-preserving, decentralized public key infrastructure.")
> + (description "GNUnet is a framework for secure, distributed, peer-to-peer
> +networking. The high-level goal is to provide a strong foundation of free
> +software for a global, distributed network which provides security and
> +privacy. GNUnet in that sense aims to replace the current internet protocol
> +stack. Along with an application for secure publication of files, it has
> +grown to include all kinds of basic applications for the foundation of a GNU
> +gnunet-0.10.1 is the last stable release candidate, however for
> +development purposes and keeping up with latest changes, the SVN version
> +might be preferable until a new version is released.")
Sure, the new text looks fine to me.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature