Hi pkg-privacy-tools & fteproxy maintainers! Nicolas Braud-Santoni: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 07:21:50AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: >> I suggest first checking why we're still including obfsproxy: >> I suspect most of the reverse-dependency relationships might be >> obsolete nowadays (the last upstream version was released 3 years ago, >> and AFAIK obfs4proxy is the future).
> Thanks, that's a great point: > - tor and ooniprobe suggest obfsproxy, and that should be dropped; > ooniprobe should suggest obfs4proxy instead. Indeed since upstream commit e6035577f33b8d34a10117bf30bffda45719896a (first included in v2.1.0), ooniprobe's README.rst recommends installing obfs4proxy instead of obfsproxy. Nicolas, do you want to file bugs recommending these two changes? > - fteproxy hard-depends on obfsproxy, but uses it as a library so > AppArmor confinement doesn't matter there. OK, so I've tagged #884043 wontfix. > Regarding fteproxy, it was listed at 0 recent uses (and 3 installs > in total). Dear fteproxy maintainers, if you ever decide that fteproxy should not be in the next Debian stable release, please let us know: this would allow us to also drop obfsproxy which is mostly dead upstream. In the meantime, let's keep obfsproxy in the archive as long as it's maintainable and fteproxy wants it :) Cheers, -- intrigeri
