README file for Mac OS X package

[Hideki Saito]

Ok, so looks like for short term, looks like my package is satisfying
needs that Privoxy is separately upgradable!

The bundle package created is something called "Metapackage" which
actually contains unmodified privoxy package (yes, EXACTLY the one
they are distributing) thus which can be independantly upgrade.


On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 23:37:11 -0500, Nick Mathewson <nickm at freehaven.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 05:38:58PM -0500, Roger Dingledine wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 04:43:52PM -0500, Geoffrey Goodell wrote:
> > > As it turns out, for .exit support, we will need a patched privoxy in
> > > order to deal with virtual hosts (as specified by the HTTP "Host:"
> > > field), and we may also want to modify "a" and "img" tagged URLs in the
> > > HTML body to reflect .exit locality as well.  This may mean that we
> > > would want to ship a hacked privoxy...
> >
> > I would be much much much happier with pushing a patch for Privoxy back
> > upstream, and then just shipping a privoxy config file that makes use of
> > the feature. (It will take a while before users are using the new one,
> > but hey. You can instruct them to use the CVS version if they want to
> > use your feature.)
> >
> > Tor is not going to get into the business of supporting Privoxy,
> > especially a Privoxy fork that alienates the Privoxy folks from us.
> 
> I spoke with Roger about this, and to clarify:
> 
> If we need to patch Privoxy, we need to patch Privoxy.  If at all
> possible, we should of course push patches back towards the mainline
> Privoxy, but if we are forced to choose between "Tor won't work" and
> "we ship a patched Privoxy", then we ship a patched Privoxy.
> 
> If it becomes necessary to maintain a patchset long-term, we would
> want to do so with an eye to keeping it mergeable with Privoxy.  So
> we'd need to make sure that we kept our stuff compatible with their
> coding standards, licensing, and so on.
> 
> > If you want to fork Privoxy and distribute a modded version, Geoff,
> > feel free, but I don't want it in the Tor packages.
> 
> I don't want it in Tor proper either, but I still think it'd be a
> better deal to ship an omnibus, "batteries-included" package.
> Ideally, we could do it in a nice friendly way so that Privoxy would
> be independently upgradeable, and the documentation patched so that
> the Privoxy people would not be burdened with support requests for
> modified software.
> 
> Finally, we should ask the Privoxy people for advice/suggestions
> here.  They probably have a better handle on "how to avoid alienating
> the Privoxy people" than we do. :)
> 
> yours
> --
> Nick Mathewson
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Hideki Saito mailto: hidekis at gmail.com