Re: Becoming the OS X binary maintainer

G'day All

I have done some maintaining of version 10.5, 10.6 and 10.7 of the Apple 
OS intel version with privoxy 3.0.17, what ya will find is that each OS 
is very different to each other, for example if ya compile the privoxy 
as is on say 10.5, it will work with that OS version only. But 
(privoxy/utility) will not work on either 10.6 or 10.7 period from the 
older OS compile version. So if ya compile it on say 10.6 it will not 
work on the other two, the first been the way Apple I think has change 
the USER/Group permission's under the hood. Second is that in Lion, 
Apple has remove the local directory completely in 10.7. So with Lion 
hear a question I ask myself with regards to the latest OS version, is 
it easy for user base or system base privoxy in Lion only? The only 
solution is to compile for each OS and then dump each package into one 
dmg file for which the user can choose for their respected OS version. 
This seems to be the easy method that I found for the difference's among 
the OS version's.
P.S I might try doing for 3.0.18 version soon.
Cheers

On 23/11/11 5:41 AM, David Schmidt wrote:
> Hi, Ian -
>
> I had been the Privoxy OSX maintainer from OSX 10.0 through 10.3.  Once
> OSX 10.4 came out, the platform diverged somewhat - and I wasn't able to
> maintain it any more because I no longer had a platform that supported
> the newer OSes and chip technologies that came next.  Other maintainers
> stepped in from time to time, but we didn't have a lot of continuous
> community support.
>
> Time has cured some of those problems - we can probably assume that most
> folks have 10.5 or above (as I do now), so we don't have to worry a lot
> about the older versions that would require a lot of build trickery.
> The main source code will likely still compile without trouble using the
> gnu C compiler (there is no Objective-C in the project so far as I
> know... at least I never used it while maintaining it).  But of course
> putting Privoxy on the Apple app store is a non-starter since it's Open
> Source.  A .dmg is probably all that most folks need, anyway.
>
> I can help out if you have questions - but all that is really required
> is the ability to put together a current installable package in whatever
> technology Apple is using these days.  And be prepared for it to change
> again soon.
>
> - David
>
> On 11/22/2011 12:19 PM, Fabian Keil wrote:
>> Ian Silvester<[email protected]>   wrote:
>>
>>> I've not idea what I'm taking on by saying this, but as a long time user
>>> of Privoxy on OS X I am keen for it to be easily available to the Mac
>>> user community and so I'd like to step up to the plate as maintainer of
>>> the OS X binary. I am dimly aware that there were disagreements that
>>> terminated the creation of the OS X binary some months (years?) ago, so
>>> I'll understand if you prefer for the project not to have a supported
>>> Mac build.
>>
>> In general we prefer to support as many platforms as possible.
>>
>> The "disagreement" you mention is documented at:
>> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=211118&aid=1876629&group_id=11118
>>
>> In my obviously-biased opinion it was more of a misunderstanding
>> than a real disagreement. I was under the impression that we had
>> two non-competing Mac OS X packages that appealed to different
>> user groups, but one of the packagers apparently didn't.
>>
>> Unfortunately I was unaware of this until it was too late.
>>
>> The maintainer of the "competing" package stopped packaging
>> due to lack of time, like many packagers did before him.
>> No hard feelings there, as far as I know.
>>
>>> I also have to admit that I have practically zero Objective C experience
>>> (I debugged some code for Rixstep's Xfile once) and my C is pretty
>>> rusty, but then I guess the interface for the Privoxy Utility is done
>>> and dusted so I'm assuming it's mostly a question of compile and package
>>> yes?
>>
>> It depends on what you want to package.
>>
>> Given that the "Privoxy Utility" is an external application
>> (and unlike other tools not even part of the source tarball),
>> one can create Privoxy packages without it.
>>
>> I believe that's what MacPorts and similar sites do.
>>
>> Given that the creator of the "Privoxy Utility" quit,
>> it is also currently unmaintained and may no longer work
>> on recent Mac OS X released.
>>
>> In my personal opinion the feature set of the "Privoxy Utility"
>> is rather limited compared to what one gets by combining the
>> other Privoxy tools available, but there are certainly other
>> users who felt that it worked great for them. BTW, that's true
>> for the Windows GUI as well (which unfortunately is not an external
>> application).
>>
>>> Anyway, let me know if this is of interest and I'll dust off Xcode.
>>
>> I'm reasonable sure that OS X packages would be appreciated.
>> Whether or not any users actually could be bothered to thank
>> you is another question, but this isn't a Mac-specific issue.
>>
>> I probably can't help you with Objective C issues, but maybe others can.
>> If you encounter any problems with Privoxy itself, I'll certainly try
>> to help.
>>
>> You also may want to ask on the users list what Mac OS X users
>> expect from a Privoxy package.
>>
>> Fabian
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
> data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure 
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, 
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this 
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d