[tor-dev] Reproducibility of Pluggable Transports python.msi

[Brandon Wiley]

I am in favor of standardizing on the Go codebase for pluggable transports
that ship with Tor. This is something we talked about at the last developer
meeting. The reason I favor this is not for reproducible build reasons, but
because maintaining four implementations (C, Python, C++, and Go) is
confusing for PT developers. As far as I know, since the last developer
meeting all Tor products have been migrating towards shipping the Go PT
implementation so that they can get obfs4 support. Last I checked, some of
Tor products are also shipping other PT implementations in order to
maintain access to transports not available in Go. I imagine that there is
some time in the future where there will no longer be any bridges available
for the older transports and so bundling clients for them will no longer be
necessary. However, I don't know what the current level of use for non-Go
transports is. I'd love to know if someone has those stats.

I also don't know how well reproducible builds work with Go, so if someone
knows that would be interesting information.

On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Jeremy Rand <biolizard89 at gmail.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 09/09/2015 06:43 PM, Brandon Wiley wrote:
> > Another option here, besides getting python to build in gitian is
> > to phase out support for python-based pluggable transports. It's
> > something to consider at least. Which transports are still only
> > available in python?
>
> Indeed -- the reason I originally asked this question was to evaluate
> whether Namecoin (of which I'm a developer) should keep developing
> code in Python or whether we should port that code to Golang.  We
> really want reproducible builds, and based on the info David and
> Joseph have shared, Namecoin is probably going to (where feasible)
> port to Golang (which Tor is successfully building reproducibly with
> very minimal code).  I'm curious whether the Tor devs have come to a
> similar conclusion.
>
> Cheers,
> - -Jeremy
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2
>
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJV8H+MAAoJEAHN/EbZ1y06utEQAIrpmeB7k6UDqDpmeeEdOrBB
> cqKsxg28UmNo4c32+sY+ocouYBPAgqKAQwXyMkUI4sMvpPXsbWSjf8UdyXxPdcT0
> JfUr/skxEf/9jfHNccHm0UfOymYeNoTsAvPTUfOxbZ2F1ZfQ49gfKzqfcntXqpKa
> B3nVoQSAz8xTWeIvzJdrdZgMlNDc61Xvv4UznALJItrpGEC33RK8p4la9SwC2iss
> /v/YtuqI7fPzCwzrDnQOU7ol3j40lRKhHbskTwKFBNmDp9hEKUbgQJbloiNYfXwg
> cS7Q3fYM+JpPyIgJwMTV1CwTSrcF+rGLhG2gRLeCSMzKF9c8MAVCOCdpNjeKxcFx
> Rc6RjWw4ClyXLyB24BrKLipd9gY0I6DWI29cEfTVKfcyHN+0qFvcecBjrFsCGWYE
> RkRDVuDSRzRnIdz/kIhcxpGhezvwl09PRGCuJ8f/oLGk79QGpkqXunv2gvV9AlNM
> MmIffRoEhvhqvPGf6sVx0xxphP9sk6WiCKb6n8onrQRcPVN4mPG6MjQ+eyxPOsCa
> Eo+BLb78c4CVzNnhher1HeuBbR4UxZvi66V8NhcPW4pSUZamIrIxVsnwAsV70vBP
> 2NDfkGgpcaHVr+nr5XvccGJZWsFcYv38GlB9PuwxSNCmJI6pALQic7ArS6VMS7QZ
> H8jm1cUe+2jSeFMNLiq/
> =uyhm
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> tor-dev mailing list
> tor-dev at lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/attachments/20150909/a392c3b2/attachment.html>