FEDAnet project

Proposal Readings Download Backbone License Donate

previous • index

Version 0.0.72

Wed Jul 1 19:10:00 2026 UTC

I've just uploaded fedanet-0.0.72.tbz2, in which a minor fix is made to the code. Thanks go to a guy with nickname posyx for reporting where to look. Hopefully, this fixes both issues with non-intel platforms (primarily ARM), and with NetBSD. Looks like it was because "default" char is unsigned there, while in one weird part of the code it was assumed to be signed.

I'm not sure if this will really work on ARMs as well as on NetBSD (as I have neither of them right now), so if you have any of them, please update and report back your experience, both positive or negative.

comment on this

From vjkarbo (unverified) Fri Jul 3 22:18:30 2026 UTC

sucessfull building on DragonFly

Thanks for including the build code, the build was successful. How did you solve the problem of running non-root on bsd systems? I run #su -m fedanet -c `/home/user1/.fedanet/fedaserv -v -E -f -c /home/user1/.fedanet/serv.conf' this way and get the same error as in version *.71.: open: tun0: Permission denied; failed to set up the tun iface. (the system has a fedanet pseudo-user and rights to the fedanet:fedanet directory and files). I also experimented with /etc/devfs.conf and /etc/devfs.rules but `uucp dialer on /dev/tun interface` is clearly a different privilege level.

From EVI (unverified) Fri Jul 3 20:08:06 2026 UTC

NetBSD RPi 1B+ works

# ping6 feda:f22f:f544:8c95:1bb3:3897:100:feda
PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) feda:f22f:f544:8c95:1bb3:3897:7700:feda --> feda:f22f:f544:8c95:1bb3:3897:100:feda
16 bytes from feda:f22f:f544:8c95:1bb3:3897:100:feda, icmp_seq=0 hlim=61 time=269.994 ms
16 bytes from feda:f22f:f544:8c95:1bb3:3897:100:feda, icmp_seq=1 hlim=61 time=269.329 ms

From Andrey Stolyarov Sat Jul 4 19:20:32 2026 UTC in reply to this comment

Re: NetBSD RPi 1B+ works

Great news, thanks!

From posyx Thu Jul 2 12:36:48 2026 UTC

Test

I modified and tested it myself, and it works. This version (0.0.72) also works.

Question for user Ilya: Did this fix the issue with duplicate packages in his “aarch64+debian” configuration?

From Andrey Stolyarov Thu Jul 2 20:45:44 2026 UTC in reply to this comment

Re: Test

> This version (0.0.72) also works.

Thanks!