On 05/04/2012 01:04 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
> On 5/4/12 2:21 AM, Ondrej Mikle wrote:
>> On 05/03/2012 01:32 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>>> On 5/2/12 9:35 PM, Sebastian G. wrote:
[...]
"We don't need it, so better remove it." I really like that.
>>>
>>> I think we're really conservativ
Since the dawn of Orbot, way back in 2009, the onion routing robot app
has been built using an unwieldy combination of tools, based on an
extremely out of date method for cross-compiling C code for Android/ARM.
In the 1.x era of Android, there was no Native Development Kit as their
is now, but than
On 5/4/12 3:52 PM, Sebastian G. wrote:
> Karsten Loesing, 04.05.2012 12:31:
>> Sounds like a fine approach. Want to do it (when the 2008 tarball is
>> available)? It would be interesting to see a) what fraction of bridges
>> you think you can derive IP addresses for and b) how accurate your
>> g
Karsten Loesing, 04.05.2012 12:31:
> On 5/3/12 7:22 PM, Sebastian G. wrote:
>> The safest way is to ensure that bridge and relay operators are aware of
>> the fact that their naming scheme should avoid correlations, wherever
>> both are actually located. The question here is on how to ensure it?!
MSVC doesn't have . Hence this little patch is needed:
--- Git-latest\src\tools\tor-gencert.c Tue Jan 24 17:05:52 2012
+++ src\tools\tor-gencert.c Thu Apr 26 08:51:02 2012
@@ -9,7 +9,9 @@
#include
#include
#include
+#ifdef HAVE_UNISTD_H
#include
+#endif
#include
#include
On 5/4/12 2:21 AM, Ondrej Mikle wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 01:32 PM, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>> On 5/2/12 9:35 PM, Sebastian G. wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> "We don't need it, so better remove it." I really like that.
>>
>> I think we're really conservative with giving out bridge data, and
>> that's good.
>>
>
On 5/3/12 8:06 PM, Robert Ransom wrote:
> On 5/3/12, Karsten Loesing wrote:
>
>> How do we define "similar" and "located where the relay is?" I can see
>> how a relay "bastik1" and a bridge "bastik2" have similar nicknames, but
>> would we also teach a program that "bastikrelay" and "bastikbridg
On 5/3/12 7:22 PM, Sebastian G. wrote:
> The safest way is to ensure that bridge and relay operators are aware of
> the fact that their naming scheme should avoid correlations, wherever
> both are actually located. The question here is on how to ensure it?!
This is a usability question. Telling
