Hi,
On Fri, 2020-11-13 at 08:15 +0900, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
> Hi,
>
> tl;dr:
> - Should we move towards a monolithic gnunet.git repo which includes
> gtk/secushare again?
> - Should we instead move optional components (conversation, reclaim,
> messenger) out of gnunet.git as extensions?
> -
Martin Schanzenbach writes:
> tl;dr:
> - Should we move towards a monolithic gnunet.git repo which includes
> gtk/secushare again?
> - Should we instead move optional components (conversation, reclaim,
> messenger) out of gnunet.git as extensions?
Hello,
I want to express my opinion on the matt
On 11/13/20 12:15 AM, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
> Hi,
>
> tl;dr:
> - Should we move towards a monolithic gnunet.git repo which includes
> gtk/secushare again?
gtk+: I'm still undecided ;-).
Secushare: it's been unmaintained for a while, and unless someone else
steps up to actually get it workin
On 11/13/20 12:36 PM, Christian Grothoff wrote:
On 11/13/20 12:15 AM, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
Hi,
tl;dr:
- Should we move towards a monolithic gnunet.git repo which includes
gtk/secushare again?
gtk+: I'm still undecided ;-).
Secushare: it's been unmaintained for a while, and unless some
On 13.11.20 12:36, Christian Grothoff wrote:
> On 11/13/20 12:15 AM, Martin Schanzenbach wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> tl;dr:
>> - Should we move towards a monolithic gnunet.git repo which includes
>> gtk/secushare again?
> gtk+: I'm still undecided ;-).
>
> Secushare: it's been unmaintained for a while, an
Thank you all for your feedback.
I think I am leaning towards keeping it mostly as is and organizing
possible candiates for exclusion around their dependencies.
Let me make my packaging concerns a bit more precise.
What we probably do NOT want to happen is a single gnunet package wich
depends on
