1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <laanwj@gmail.com>) id 1WdEcV-0003TL-GV
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:02:59 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.174; envelope-from=laanwj@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WdEcT-0003rA-Rl
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:02:59 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id rp18so2050214iec.33
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.120.66 with SMTP id la2mr3619250igb.1.1398326572555; Thu,
24 Apr 2014 01:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.22.168 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:02:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgSQ6rh1XKao6pv8BmpeRbtqWfUOVF+C1Fi3LEzY1YcPiA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEz79PrAg=yydd3UOk51wGQUWey-KZHUH1Npzwb=qL+6zTj+pQ@mail.gmail.com>
<53581D1D.1000709@gmail.com>
<CAEz79Poy0XEVyC=nOdhYNVOASvfB-2zHJcjU2hvjA7iDWGDDyw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgSQ6rh1XKao6pv8BmpeRbtqWfUOVF+C1Fi3LEzY1YcPiA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:02:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+s+GJDY6c2-fjbL=JcrF3umM4ji8Y5j5ppxX_mAzZdTh1_QRw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(laanwj[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1WdEcT-0003rA-Rl
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Development Roadmap of Bitcoin Core 0.9.2
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:02:59 -0000
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrot=
e:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail.com> wr=
ote:
>> If you are
>> a rare user who needs Bitcoin-Qt on an incompatible system you can at le=
ast
>> build it from source.
>
> Tails users usually can't really build it from source=E2=80=94 talks is a=
live
> boot mostly stateless linux distribution for privacy applications.
> It's really good in general.
Aside: But is Bitcoin Core a well-suited application for those uses? I
cannot imagine someone running a full node on a stateless system.
Anyhow: As this is only one symbol, we can probably get rid of it (as
we didn't use it in 0.8.6?), or put it behind some #ifdef
COMPATIBILITY_BUILD...
Another option: Instead of statically building it'd be easy enough to
build against the 4.6 Qt headers instead without even swapping the
library. Qt is, after all, forward-compatible - between the 4.x
versions. This will lose some GUI features but if compatibility is
more important here that's a choice that can be made.
Wladimir
|
