-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 08/09/13 15:33, Lunar wrote:
Ximin Luo:
I assume people will be interested in creating Debian packages for these too. I am wondering if we should adopt a naming convention like tor-pt-sshproxy, tor-pt-flashproxy, tor-pt-obfsproxy etc - like how mozilla extensions are all called xul-ext-*. (We could even start a working group too.)
ATM this would involve renaming obfsproxy, but I am about to package flashproxy, and thinking about what to name the package.
I have heard people making the argument that obfsproxy, at least, was not specific to Tor and could perfectly be used with plain SSH. The prefix ?tor-pt-? would not really be appropriate then.
That is an argument that supports keeping the current name, but not directly a counter-argument against changing it. I'd say that if a package advertises managed mode (using the Tor managed PT envvar/stdio protocol) as its primary usage, then it clearly thinks of itself primarily as a Tor PT, and so it's a good candidate for being named tor-pt-*. (obfsproxy does this.) - -- GPG: 4096R/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE git://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJSLQVNAAoJEIYN7zuPZQt5EEoP/RzPPkMVjPvYfOb8CMF8UEa4 vWp1rrNc3w8nurH5/GWIcuxnIjm/9FzAxAI3tKGajX6RV9jvH364wNIgy4moXBLc 0070ItZB7UKHTLhGr7cbyPG11y1nyVpy4dw0fJFs6t9aYHWHBVbuWONDTbUm+T7D xFyql3CimIA3TvF/hE0G2wNSdxm2DbNfy3vTp32jhPanYVTyaUcRxEwYBo9LMkvh ShU4O0IsyRHSCIAKxNVxvLnwsJQS8ipTpHKTo+qfAUtRQTzl9hfzaP7/RjL6NNUN LQLzU9vlOcyA2tCmZKbKzGrp1QzFksWRIz4UY+uqKxnJWLODO8FtEEwS/BMc6G3g zcxRVsjqOxvdfy31MM/LCvm0wu2fWanovrkXTxOHCqsNl3io3w6pVpSTny4NvmKe wm3AVf/mBIn/ZwYY7UiPpH+ClsgsT7Vu6gzYM+2Zct0gxd3+KL9GI5pVwt1AQ2QA tAvclEQuRgu+tTHZgHCA1GVdQNhaOqjq3EI3BA1PYN1xS5ite2Hd6pI1lo8TFCIJ xBcVn4hG9mVgSDaKndtxgNea3qLxFW9tTSfUMykVsHajuOlrM/7FsgvB4ljsmFYD OaGnB8xp/0vBH0+mXcOlMan3FOfAW/TQRVreTT4goxpcCNpWLT5hU5AzQ8QkLQUx ky2sGNRzSwuN6xzKk4/r =A8e2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----