Please backport gnunet* 0.8.0 packages

Bug #243514 reported by Milan Bouchet-Valat
6
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Hardy Backports
Invalid
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

GNUnet is the secured peer-to-peer framework of the GNU project. It has just released a 0.8.0 version that breaks network protocol compatibility with 0.7.3, which is packaged in Hardy. Thus, GNUnet in Hardy is almost useless since less and less peers will be in the old network.

Moreover, in Hardy, gnunet-gtk suffers from the critical bug 217962: it is completely unusable due to a version mismatch when syncing from Debian. Beside this, many many major improvements have been done, as well as bug fixes (see homepage).

GNUnet consists in 3 source packages:
- source package gnunet: gives gnunet (virtual), gnunet-server, gnunet-tools, gnunet-client, gnunet-common, gnunet-fuse (+ -dev and -gdb packages)
- source package gnunet-gtk (depends on gnunet)
- source package gnunet-qt (depends on gnunet)

The gnunet package has entered Intrepid recently from a sync with Debian (bug 217962). The others are still waiting (for no reason), and can enter Intrepid as soon as we want them to. Anyway, the gnunet package should be backported before or at the same time as the others because of the versioned depends.

External dependencies: gnunet* 0.8.0 requires libmicrohttpd4 (0.3.1) which is not in Hardy (libmicrohttpd3 is there). This should not be a real problem since gnunet is the only package using libmicrohttpd, and .so names are versioned: this is backport bug 240136.

Please just ask for further information, help or testing. Thanks for your work!

description: updated
Revision history for this message
Pär Lindfors (paran) wrote :

Shouldn't this be a stable release update instead, if the current packages in hardy are unuseable?

Revision history for this message
Milan Bouchet-Valat (nalimilan) wrote :

I'd like it to! But given the amount of changes undergone by the source code, I doubt it will be accepted. This is a completely new release. Not speaking of the libmicrohttpd4 dependency that should be introduced... What do you think? Easier to make a backport, isn't it?

Revision history for this message
Michael Casadevall (mcasadevall) wrote :

Talking with a member of the SRU team, its been decided that gnunet will be done as an SRU and not as a backport. Marking this invalid

Changed in hardy-backports:
status: New → Invalid
To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.