l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Nils Gillmann <niaster...@grrlz.net> skribis: > >> +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.") > > [...] > >> +;; We provide SVN in addition to the older 0.10.1 version, >> +;; protocol and API compatibility will be broken when GNUnet bug #4165 >> +;; is fixed. >> +(define-public gnunet-svn >> + (package >> + (name "gnunet-svn") >> + (version "0.10.1.svn36926") > > We avoid packaging unreleased software. Could you instead lobby for a > new GNUnet release? :-) I think it’s long overdue, especially given > API changes and networking incompatibilities. > > Thanks, > Ludo’. > >
In this case I have to disagree. I would if I could, but I had a conversation with Christian about it*. The most useable GNUnet right now for us is the SVN checkout. See this thread for more, iirc I explained it there: 6.6k│O │=> gmane.comp.gnu.guix.║ ● addresses: works around gnunet-gtk, gnunet, attention push for powwow, un-font, general question You can of course use gnunet-0.10.1 but this includes all the bad, outdated parts. It's an in-development network and I see no reason why we should not package a more recent version when there's also the 0.10.1 version still around. I named it -svn for a reason to not force svn on people. If you yourself decide to use the svn version, then you can do it. There are significant differences and it is stable enough. Jookia, another person Jookia knows, and myself tested this specific checkout, and I will do so for updated numbers of checkouts when/if I should change the package. >From my perspective I want people to have a good experience of trying out (that's the way you should put it at this stage with this gnunet-setup and no applications like SecuShare being ready) the GNUnet. You experience will be outdated with 0.10.1, and every distro which packages GNUnet has version numbered releases and svn checkouts. Once the next release number is out, I will package it. *This is most of his reply: I'm glad to hear that SVN HEAD fixes the issue(s), and yes 0.10.1 had a number of rather annoying bugs, which didn't quite increase my fancy to make another premature release, as you can imagine. In terms of a "stable" SVN version, as you probably know the CADET issues have been around for a while, and I'm not aware of one that totally had no known CADET issue in it -- one of the main reasons for there not being a release for a while. The other issue may be protocol compatibility, and here a major sticking point is: https://gnunet.org/bugs/view.php?id=4165 which, when we fix it, will break protocol *and* API compatibility. I could probably address this one in 1 day, but I want to see the CADET bugs fixed before possibly introducing new ones ;-). Other than #4165 and the known 'crash' issues, most recent SVN revision numbers are reasonable for a "SVN package". -- ng personal contact: http://krosos.sdf.org EDN: https://wiki.c3d2.de/Echt_Dezentrales_Netz/en
