Re: Bug#739626: How to name the websocket PT server in Debian; was ITP: tor-pt-websocket -- WebSocket pluggable transport
On Sun, Mar 30, 2014 at 05:56:27PM +0100, Ximin Luo wrote:
> 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.
It sounds fine to me.
David Fifield
Reply to: