Landry Breuil <lan...@rhaalovely.net> writes: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 09:07:46AM -0600, attila wrote: >> >> attila <att...@stalphonsos.com> writes: >> >> > attila <att...@stalphonsos.com> writes: >> > >> >> attila <att...@stalphonsos.com> writes: >> >> >> >>> attila <att...@stalphonsos.com> writes: >> >>> >> >>>> attila <att...@stalphonsos.com> writes: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Hi ports@, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I have been informed that my previous email re Tor Browser Bundle was >> >>>>> malformed: the Content-Type header on the message says text/plain but >> >>>>> should be multipart/mixed, which causes many (most?) MUAs to throw up >> >>>>> all over it. I'm not sure where the fault lies yet, and apologize for >> >>>>> the screwed up attachment. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> In the interests of simplicity and efficacy the tarball can be found >> >>>>> here: http://bits.haqistan.net/~attila/tbb.tgz >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Sorry. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Pax, -A >> >>>> >> >>>> I've updated http://bits.haqistan.net/~attila/tbb.tgz with the >> >>>> just-completed update to Tor Browser 4.5.3. Tested on amd64. >> >>>> >> >>>> So... update & ping. >> >>>> >> >>>> Pax, -A >> >>> >> >>> Reupdate & reping: >> >>> >> >>> I brought the ports up to the current version, which is now 5.0.3. >> >>> I've also solved my attachment woes; updated ports attached (URL above >> >>> has new bits as well). Tested on amd64. There are packages available >> >>> for testing at: >> >>> http://mirrors.nycbug.org/pub/snapshots/packages/amd64/ >> >>> The README file there might be helpful if you want to test. >> >>> >> >>> FWIW, the GH repository is: https://github.com/torbsd/openbsd-ports >> >>> YMMV. >> >>> >> >>> Pax, -A >> >> >> >> Re-reupdate & re-reping: >> >> >> >> Thanks to Daniel Jakots for pointing out that the inter-package >> >> dependencies were all balled up and led to problems. Updated ports >> >> attached with better deps, updated packages for testing available at >> >> the nycbug URL, above. >> >> >> >> Pax, -A >> > >> > Re*ping. I know some people have been using the packages we put up >> > for testing purposes. I also know this is potentially sort of a >> > controversial (set of) port(s) and that everyone is busy but if anyone >> > could be troubled to take a look and give some feedback that would >> > be great. >> > >> > Attaching the latest version of the ports for completeness. >> > >> > Pax, -A >> >> Ping. > > I had a quick look a while ago at the Makefile. I would *really* prefer > you to shrink it by reusing www/mozilla MODULE, provided you work out > the correct changes that would be needed for tbb without breaking the > other users of the module. Instead of copy-pasting-cargo-culting what's > in the module...
I would be thrilled to do this, esp. since I already follow along w/mozilla.port.mk changes anyway. Will get on it. > Is the .mozconfig hackery really needed ? This was to get around an early hurdle; it might be that it isn't necessary any more or that I can find a better way - will investigate. > The @exec lines in the PLIST should go at the bottom. Okay. > > I think you dont need files/firefox.desktop, and do you really need > files/profiles.ini ? The former you're right, it's not needed. The latter, sadly, is really needed to make sure a user's ~/.tor-browser has the shape required to initialize it properly. It is very small and it could just be sucked into the start-tor-browser sh script instead if that's preferable. > > Have you tried leaving the .xpi files compressed in their respective > dirs at runtime (eventually unzipping/patching/rezipping) as you comment > in Makefile.inc line 68 ? Iirc this should also work and is 'nicer' to > the filesystem.. I tried many variations of this a few months ago and none of them worked but I will revisit it. > I'm still not a fan of having this in-tree, but i'd like opinions from > other porters & tor users (users, not fanboys please) here - especially > pascal since he's the tor maintainer :) Yes, I would also like to hear from others who are using it since I know they're out there. If this really isn't something a lot of people want then I'd like to know that, if only for personal reasons. > Landry Thanks a lot for your critique. Above and beyond what you point out, there's an issue I was hoping to get feedback on: should noscript and https-everywhere be packaged separatedly somehow or stay combined into tbb? My rationale for doing it the latter way was: 1. If you install TBB under linux you get noscript+httpse, so it's expected; 2. I didn't really see a lot of other XPIs in ports (maybe I missed some). I modeled my packaging mostly on mail/enigmail; 3. If I were to split noscript and https-everywhere out into their own ports there is an issue (the way I've done it) as to where they install themselves in the filesystem. Tor Browser wants them under e.g. /usr/local/lib/tor-browser-5.0.3/distribution/extensions but e.g. Firefox would want them somewhere else. This could be accounted for in the packaging in various ways, but I wasn't sure what the best one was (multi-packages I guess?) and it wasn't clear they would be wanted anyway; 4. Of course, each release of Tor Browser wants specific releases of noscript+httpse which are sometimes not the most recent ones. The three things that must for sure go together are tor-browser, torbutton and tor-launcher. The other two I did the way I did to make progress, but if there are opinions I'd love to hear them. I'd be happy to maintain noscript+httpse ports separately if there is interest. Pax, -A -- http://trac.haqistan.net | att...@stalphonsos.com | 0xE6CC1EDB
