Hi Mike,

dcf and I have been working to validate my TBB+fteproxy patch [1]. My patch results in a build that's deterministic for dcf and I [2]. I've verified that the binaries produced work on their respective target platforms.

The TBB+fteproxy repo. is on github [3].

What do you need from me to merge these changes upstream?

-Kevin

[1] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10362 [2] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/10362#comment:21 [3] https://github.com/kpdyer/tor-browser-bundle/tree/fte

On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:51 PM, David Fifield david@bamsoftware.com wrote:

On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:49:59AM -0600, Kevin P Dyer wrote:

...

Please see [2] for a patch that integrates fteproxy into dcf's 3.6-beta

branch

...

[3] of the TBB.

This integration targets version v0.2.6 of fteproxy [1].

asn/mikeperry - What do you need from me to merge this patch to master?

I will try building it and let you know how it goes.

You probably want to try rebasing on the mainline tag tbb-3.5.1-build7

https://gitweb.torproject.org/builders/tor-browser-bundle.git/tag/refs/tags/... , because the pt branch has already been merged there. There were a couple of changes related to openssl that may or may not affect you.

David Fifield

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 07:25:47PM +0000, mikeperry wrote:

I've put a tag on them to review them. It looks like Lunar found an issue with tor-fw-helper Ubuntu though (see tor-qa).

tor-fw-helper is a separate bunch of packages; Kevin's FTE packages don't have anything to do with those.

I suspect FTE will be ready to merge before tor-fw-helper is. The tor-fw-helper packages I floated to tor-qa were more to measure whether it's worth trying to ship tor-fw-helper at all; i.e., if it only works for 10% of users, maybe not; if 50%, maybe so. I would feel more comfortable if there first were a code audit on miniupnpc and libnatpmp as well.

David Fifield