[tor-packagers] torbrowser package on NetBSD
wiz at NetBSD.org
Mon May 27 12:47:21 UTC 2019
Thanks for the reply!
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:40:29PM +0100, Nicolas Vigier wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > There are no tarballs. Please provide some! :)
> The next Tor Browser alpha release (which will be released next week)
> will include source tarballs for firefox, torbutton and tor-launcher:
> For the stable release, this should be included in the first 8.5 stable
> release (currently planned for early April).
I saw that these exist now. Great! Thank you! I've switched the pkgsrc
package to use them.
I'm not sure if I should package torbutton or tor-launcher.
Is torbutton included in the
src-firefox-tor-browser-60.7.0esr-8.5-1-build1.tar.xz? If not, how
should this be packaged exactly? (I.e. installed in a particular
subdirectory of tor-browser?)
What is tor-launcher, is that torbrowser-launcher? Does that make
sense on platforms where binary tor packages are not provided by the
> > tor-browser defaults to using socks port 9150, but tor defaults to
> > port 9050. Why is that so? Is there an intended way (configure flag?)
> > to change the tor-browser default?
> Tor Browser includes its own tor daemon. It is using a different port
> so it does not conflict with the one that might be installed on the
> It is possible to change the ports used with the TOR_SOCKS_PORT and
> TOR_CONTROL_PORT environment variables:
> It is also possible to change the pref network.proxy.socks_port in
> tor-browser.git/browser/app/profile/000-tor-browser.js, and
> extensions.torlauncher.control_port in
tor daemon is not included in the pkgsrc package for tor-browser, it's
a separate package that is installed automatically whenever
tor-browser is installed (but with tor's defaults, i.e. 9050). What
would you suggest is the preferred solution here, patching the two
make running tor-browser as easy as possible by default.
> > I've inherited the attached patch from the previous version of the
> > package. It changes the default directory to one in the user's home,
> > which makes more sense to me on a Unix system where the program is
> > installed in a public path. Would this patch be acceptable for
> > inclusion, or what do you suggest?
> I opened a ticket about this:
Thanks. This looks like an internal discussion has started about it
but fizzled out; I hope it gets resolved at some point.
More information about the tor-packagers