From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxim Cournoyer Subject: Re: Debugging info unavailability Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 22:13:43 -0700 Message-ID: <87a86kkmbc.fsf@gmail.com> References: <20170423020206.41aac1a2@scratchpost.org> <87d1brk1ul.fsf@gnu.org> <87shknnrfm.fsf@gmail.com> <87pofr0xjs.fsf@gnu.org> <87zieu7d8n.fsf@gmail.com> <87bmrah2s3.fsf@elephly.net> <87tw52uu51.fsf@gnu.org> <87r3066k4c.fsf@gmail.com> <87efw3yrj3.fsf@gnu.org> <20170506124643.u62fs4ptmi2acgkp@abyayala> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50853) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8gQA-0005d2-Ql for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 01:13:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8gQ9-0005Jc-Oh for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 May 2017 01:13:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170506124643.u62fs4ptmi2acgkp@abyayala> (ng0's message of "Sat, 6 May 2017 12:46:43 +0000") List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello ng0, Sorry for the delayed reply! ng0 writes: > Maxim Cournoyer transcribed 1.0K bytes: > =E2=80=A6 >> >> What good is a substitute server if it doesn't hold the stuff I need >> >> *now*? :) On the other side, it really makes me want to look at GNUne= t, >> >> which seems like the better long term solution. >> > >> > Though GNUnet doesn=E2=80=99t solve the fact that one needs a lot of C= PU and >> > storage to build and store all this. :-) >> > >>=20 >> I think what I meant was "integration of GNUnet with guix publish". >> Something which would allow anyone to effortlessly share what's been >> built on their machine with the other Guix users. A zero config kind >> of thing, with auto discovery of peers and available substitutes. >>=20 >> I haven't researched much about GNUnet yet, but it seems it might be >> fit for that purpose. >>=20 >> Maxim >>=20 > > This has been addressed between 2013? and late 2015, and I'm about to doc= ument my own > discussions, thoughts, and roadmap for this (gathered in the last 2 years= ). > In the sense of freedom of choice, I'd rather make this an opt-in (contra= ry to what > my own position in discussions was before) so that I can make pragmaOS us= e this and > those who would like to use it too. > The main roadblocker is 5 weeks - 5 months until a new GNUnet release, bu= t there's > some tasks to work on which can be quickly updated once we have released = GNUnet 0.11 > or which version number is decided upon. > If you are interested, I can CC you in the message update when I have doc= umented > the ideas (though they are 90% identical to the outcomes of the GSoC disc= ussions > of the past, thought about without knowing it has been discussed > before). Count me in. I'd like to learn more about GNUnet and any design ideas/known issues there might be to integrate 'guix publish' with it. > My basic idea without going too much into depth (I don't want to search m= y papers): > > - following the ideas of pragmaOS, to first make GNUnet as easy as > possible to use and configure (the system service I'm working on) Shouldn't deploying GNUnet on Guix be as easy as adding a service to the system declaration (and maybe tweeking a few parameters) ? > - update the gnunet-guile bindings for HEAD of gnunet but work with 0.10.= 1 for the > current version of the service [...] > I know from the meeting december of last year that Ludovic is sceptic abo= ut > GNUnet by now to some degree, and if I could decide on releases GNUnet wo= uld now > have an -dev or -preview or whatever release. The amount of bugfixes whic= h happened > since 0.10.1 are just too much to keep 0.10.1 around, especially since th= e compability > no longer works between nodes running 0.10.1 and ones running HEAD. > Is backward compatiblity absolutely necessary, given that this version has its share of problems and is fragmenting the network. I'd rather put efforts on making GNUnet 'next' working, and well. Also, why not packaging a GNUnet-next already in Guix? With only two bugs left to fix, it should already work rather well (maybe better?) compared to 0.10.1? Guix makes it easy to have multiple versions if we need -- let's make use of it! Maxim --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEJ9WGpPiQCFQyn/CfEmDkZILmNWIFAlkT8wcACgkQEmDkZILm NWKflBAAkVs9FGaiWmq72ZRvPoh06pZKE8J47WrzWwuXkC9rK79tgLI+b+75Vm6x QyJRjamdChqMLTc7GM2DO4+lNOVxW74K4ZXuGdlwJ9xX6Kks6b2ZAQyzEsrZb3aC bFyURtTt/Edfg58Ou//Keb7sHqzCxpw7g4hXs1hVZjF+FcFxaruZW3ObkU6eZil/ /Al3TmKuwys+fh+6EebFYpw7GJk9PPHXi1vreXJQv5+WavWNykpWJu5QWY3AyXGe m0cTx3FNu+Qnots9wFdtwMpigBd4dSMK4H1curmCHUlb+yJSuz0C7CEnW011IJuZ 5MyMeXiPvkYX18AQaOhC+woxzYOFyT/QRRLncyId6O5uTSvkQR4oDWwoRdcKKlz9 yN3o0yASFoz3ngfR4S/cFAjZnVRQL4tG5ZMVgWXsNvwvIHgQSSOCAU5OrfXjwJFw Fl/ycPzo7YmTmRpft+PNll83Q7PIJIrhtYTcZ0GyuNmlyn6j6TWLk1OewWETlQ9k 8Szaf64t27HOtOcpDIKAZ3uq8n71WXcznxLoU7bbgayAOulPoSW+nCLNNBccT+NW nwTbHLQHR6kJMT2q6kRBHoe7uc94cc2DyJevVLVjgpy4e/Q4S1f9YgxselDR09QU 6ntldf068FI+mD2PfxtVrZgK9XH3V8nPyZlJ92Sm3VkITaPYLRY= =FILI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--