[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#739626: How to name the websocket PT server in Debian; was ITP: tor-pt-websocket -- WebSocket pluggable transport

control: retitle 739626 ITP: pt-websocket -- WebSocket pluggable transport

On 20/02/14 17:00, David Fifield wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 03:58:02PM +0000, Ximin Luo wrote:
>> - tor-pt-websocket or pt-websocket: These are unambigious but
>> inconsistent with the other Tor pluggable transport in Debian,
>> obfsproxy. And there is also "fteproxy" which will probably retain
>> this naming when added to Debian in the future.
> I kind of like this option, with the idea that there will be more of
> such in the future.
> websocket is a special case because the upstream package only has a
> server (there is client code but just a toy that shouldn't be
> installed). What will other packages that have a matched client and
> server look like? People installing the client probably don't want to
> install the server (and have their init.d messed with, etc.), and people
> installing the server don't also need the client.

Lunar suggested pt-websocket since it is not intrinsically tied to Tor usage, so I will go with that.

I think the longer name pt-websocket-server is unnecessary, since we are unlikely to ever release a pt-websocket-client, so I will stick pt-websocket.

If anyone disagrees, please speak up soon, since I have all the packaging ready and just need to make some final tweaks before submitting it for sponsorship.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: