Re: [GNUnet-developers] gnunet-gtk crashes

[Tom Barnes-Lawrence]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 05:01:03PM +0200, Igor Wronsky wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Tom Barnes-Lawrence wrote:
> > mneh, I suppose that must be true, but I still generally avoid using CVS.
> > Remind me, the current CVS version now uses 2 separate config files, does
> > it have other changes, eg to the directory heirarchy, data formats,etc
> > that I'd need to know about first?
> My humble and inconsequental opinion is that the gnunet project
> has failed to produce an entirely satisfying release version, ever.
> Or if it has, I can't remember the occasion. :) Maybe someday.
> The current situation is that 0.6.0a has some serious problems,
> and everyone would be better off with the current CVS version. Of
> course this recommendation can't be made general - the CVS might
> be totally blasted any day. :)

 Ah, but as I was just suggesting to Christian, actual releases show
the public at large that things are actually being done, and that
the project isn't dead or anything. They're also a bit reassuring-
you don't worry so much about loose ends stopping the thing working.
 Apart from that, I personally find CVS to be skanky (not CVS versions
of GNUnet, but the CVS interface itself).

> > THOUGHT: I'm using Glibc 2.2.5;
> > Is ANYBODY else using that version, and if so, are they getting these
> > address@hidden segfaults in gnunet-gtk or not?
> > (WAVES TO ANYONE ELSE ON THE LIST WHO MIGHT BE READING)
> 
> I just tried on debian/stable which seems to use 2.2.5. I had
> no gnunet-gtk problems in repeatedly searching and downloading
> content. My own setup uses 2.3.2 and it has no problems either...

 Oh well, probably isn't that then. (*wonders if my memory got blown
by a brown-out or something since I last tested it*)

Tomble