[HTTPS-Everywhere] [HTTPS-E Rulesets] Private/personal ruleset location?

[Claudio Moretti]

*Attention: I noticed now that GMail has made me reply only to J.B. so there
are 2 missing emails. Sorry :(*


> I'm afraid I gave the wrong impression in my post (perhaps by mistakenly
> posting to the rules list instead of the user list): I'm interested in this
> issue as a user, not as a developer.
>

Don't worry, it's not a problem;  I misunderstood, ad you're right pointing
it out.


> So I'd like to know where should users put their personal rulesets so that
> two criteria are met:
>
> 1. when users upgrade the add-on in the normal fashion (via Firefox's
> update add-on button or via automatic add-on upgrading) the upgrade won't
> delete or overwrite the personal rulesets and
>
> 2. when the user has a ruleset with the same (filename? ruleset name?) in
> both the personal ruleset folder and the included rulesets, the personal
> ruleset will be used instead of the included ruleset.  This will allow a
> user to trump any included ruleset without losing the included ruleset file.
>
> Even if I'm not testing it (it's 2 AM here, perhaps I'll do it tomorrow if
you don't do it in the meantime) I feel I can say this: if your rules are
for private/internal networks, something that doesn't go public (as you said
in your first post), the "double rule" problem is not a problem; for
experimental rules, well, if someone writes a rule you haven't completed
yet, you might have wasted your time, true, but the rule is done.
This said, the latest development version of HTTPSEverywhere has a unique
file (default.rulesets) that contains every rule available at the time of
"compiling" the XPI; so if you add a rule in your *
~/.mozilla/firefox/$PROFILE_FOLDER/extensions/
https-everywhere at eff.org/chrome/content/rules* folder (as a "normal" XML
rule file) there shouldn't be any file overwriting problem; this said, I'm
not sure that when you upgrade your HTTPSEverywhere version the whole file
structure isn't deleted and recreated, so I don't really know if your rules
are maintained within an upgrade.
Also, I think a "double" rule would create problems, so I think Maxim is
right in suggesting unique filenames (maybe, you can use a prefix like
"devel" in the rule, just to be sure) and then you can rename it when you're
sure it's working.

But this should be tested.

Claudio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.eff.org/pipermail/https-everywhere/attachments/20110802/70b9cf7e/attachment.html>