Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge feature/linux-3.12
intrigeri wrote (08 Jan 2014 12:51:38 GMT) : > So, please review'n'merge feature/linux-3.12 into stable for 0.22.1. > Note that we've already merged this into devel. > Any taker? bertagaz? Created #6584 to track this independently from the memory wipe issue. Marked #6460 as a broken window, not for 0.22.1. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
Re: [Tails-dev] Debian issue tagging for Tails
Andreas Kuckartz wrote (08 Jan 2014 12:37:24 GMT) : > Done and assigned to myself. Great! ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
[Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge feature/linux-3.12
Hi, I'm giving up on resolving #6460 (upgrade Linux without breaking memory wipe on a lot of hardware) in time for 0.22.1, *but* my current feeling is that it's important to ship a kernel without lots of known security issues (that affect all Tails users, all the time), even if it breaks the memory wipe feature on a lot of hardware (that affects a few Tails users, in rare cases). Moreover, we've had two reports (comment #14 on the ticket) of hardware where the memory wipe feature still works, so it may not be as bad as it initially looked. I intend to include something about it in the call for testing of the (untested) RC I plan to write. So, please review'n'merge feature/linux-3.12 into stable for 0.22.1. Note that we've already merged this into devel. Any taker? bertagaz? Sorry for the late notice, given the freeze is in two days, but I wanted to try until the last minute to find a better solution. To end with, we'll still want pretty badly to fix the memory wipe feature at some point. The hope I have is with the results posted on comment #16: at least on a specific laptop, upgrading to a 64-bit kernel and/or to 3.13-rc6 fixes it. So, it might be that when feature/amd64-kernel is merged (0.23, presumably), the problem vanishes at least on some more hardware. Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
Re: [Tails-dev] Debian issue tagging for Tails
intrigeri: > Right. I don't know if our request is at fault, or if the BTS is > buggy. Other teams make good use of usertags, so presumably our > request should be fixed. At least the BTS UI is partially inconsistent. It is likely that the "users" tag needs to be removed from some issues. I will find out. > Care to file a "Fix request for Tails-related bugs on the Debian BTS" > ticket with this information, and/or work on this any further? Done and assigned to myself. Cheers, Andreas ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
Re: [Tails-dev] UEFI support: wrapping-up [Was: Please test ISO with preliminary UEFI support on both UEFI and BIOS hardware]
intrigeri: > I have written a technical report of my UEFI research, early test > results and conclusions: https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/UEFI/ Nice! > 1. Ship a 64-bit kernel (#5456) in 0.23. I'm committed to lead this > to a conclusion. Assigned to the 0.23's RM (anonym) for review. > > 2. Write documentation for UEFI boot (#6562). I have listed on the > ticket what (I already know) must be done in this area. > That's a non-trivial task, and I am not sure we want to tackle it > (UEFI support is a goal for 2.0) now. But if we can come up with > a small subset of these tasks that would be good enough to add > *beta* UEFI support to 0.23, then I'd be very happy. sajolida, it > would be great if you could have a quick look to evaluate this. I could do that in time for 0.23, but I could also have an extra day of free time :) > 3. Workaround the syslinux menu display bugs (#6576) I have seen on > various hardware. Some of these bugs (on Mac) are blocking boot > entirely, some are merely inconveniences. We can try to ship it as it is, continue gathering input, and do the polishing later on. Depends on anonym as well. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
Re: [Tails-dev] Please review draft documentation for IUK
Hi, sajol...@pimienta.org wrote (08 Jan 2014 11:36:08 GMT) : >> 1. "Tails was not started from a writable device." > Which cases does this refer to? when starting from a DVD? a read-only > USB stick? what else? We happily delegate to bilibop the decision regarding whether the boot medium is writable. This of course includes DVD, and I believe one of the latest bilibop releases (that we're installing in feature/wheezy only) also detects the read-only switches on SD cards and USB sticks. >> 2. "The device Tails is running from was not created using >> Tails Installer." >> 3. "The Tails project does not provide an incremental upgrade to >> this version." (e.g. will be the case for 1.1, most likely) > In the online doc I said: > « No automatic upgrade is available from our website for this version. » > I never used "incremental" in the end. OK, good. >> 4. "There is not enough free space on the Tails system partition" (a >> bit too technical, but how to express that without having tons of >> people nagging user support because, oh well, they have space >> left on their persistent volume?) > Then, what can I do to get out of this? Reinstall? Yes, manual (full) upgrade. That's already what we tell them to do in this case anyway. >> 5. "Not enough memory is available on this system." Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
Re: [Tails-dev] Debian issue tagging for Tails
Hi, Andreas Kuckartz wrote (08 Jan 2014 11:25:47 GMT) : > It is possible to list all the Debian issues tagged for tails-dev@boum.org: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=tails-dev@boum.org Yes, that's documented on https://tails.boum.org/contribute/ and https://tails.boum.org/contribute/relationship_with_upstream/. > But this does not seem to contain all relevant issues. Thanks a lot for pointing this out! It's clear that we've not been doing a good job at usertagging our bugs in the Debian BTS. Mainly for two reasons I believe: 1. most of us have no idea this is possible, let alone how to do it 2. as you notice below, it's broken somehow, so not useful at all in the current state of things This is too bad, since I am working on a "how to help Tails, from a Debian developer point of view" document that would benefit very much from an accurate and up-to-date view of "our" bugs in the Debian BTS. > On the other hand for many of the issues in the automatically generated > list I have no idea about the relation to Tails. (The issue tracking > mechanism might even be broken.) Right. I don't know if our request is at fault, or if the BTS is buggy. Other teams make good use of usertags, so presumably our request should be fixed. Care to file a "Fix request for Tails-related bugs on the Debian BTS" ticket with this information, and/or work on this any further? Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
Re: [Tails-dev] Please review draft documentation for IUK
intrigeri: > I'm unconvinced (especially given we have to close #5735 first) that > this can land into 0.22.1, but I'd be glad to see this improved for > a future iteration. Filed #6575 as a subtask of #6508 (incremental > upgrades: complete phase four), targetted at Tails 0.23. Let's do that. > I've quickly had the code above save the reason why an incremental > upgrade is not possible. The checks that are done, and the > corresponding codenames for that reason, are (in chronological order): > > 1. non-writable-device > 2. not-installed-with-tails-installer > 3. no-incremental-upgrade-path > 4. not-enough-free-space > 5. not-enough-free-memory > > If one check does not pass, the others are not performed; in practice, > there might be multiple reasons why an incremental upgrade is not > possible, but we're only saving one. I think this should be enough to > substantially improve UX, though. > > So, when advising the user to do a manual (full) upgrade, we can now > insert a sentence that's specific to the primary reason why we cannot > do an incremental upgrade, e.g.: > > 1. "Tails was not started from a writable device." Which cases does this refer to? when starting from a DVD? a read-only USB stick? what else? > 2. "The device Tails is running from was not created using > Tails Installer." > 3. "The Tails project does not provide an incremental upgrade to > this version." (e.g. will be the case for 1.1, most likely) In the online doc I said: « No automatic upgrade is available from our website for this version. » I never used "incremental" in the end. > 4. "There is not enough free space on the Tails system partition" (a > bit too technical, but how to express that without having tons of > people nagging user support because, oh well, they have space > left on their persistent volume?) Then, what can I do to get out of this? Reinstall? > 5. "Not enough memory is available on this system." signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
[Tails-dev] Debian issue tagging for Tails
It is helpful to have a list of those Debian issues which are particularly relevant for Tails. Fortunately a mechanism to help maintaining such lists exists. It is possible to list all the Debian issues tagged for tails-dev@boum.org: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=tails-dev@boum.org But this does not seem to contain all relevant issues. At least this recent one is missing: vagrant: Incompatible with the version of VirtualBox currently in sid http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=732761 On the other hand for many of the issues in the automatically generated list I have no idea about the relation to Tails. (The issue tracking mechanism might even be broken.) Some documentation of the issue tracking feature is available here: http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-request#user Cheers, Andreas ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
Re: [Tails-dev] Logo: some ideas
intrigeri: > sajol...@pimienta.org wrote (07 Jan 2014 15:05:18 GMT) : >>> JFTR: I've checked with carmie, and she is still waiting for us to >>> propose a different pose that fits in a square. > >> I understood it differently the last time I talked to her. As none of us >> on tails-dev really know how to draw animals, I thought see was more >> able than us to do that. If she isn't more skilled than us at drawing >> animals, that's perfectly fine, but we need to look for someone else to >> do that drawing, and put them in touch in order to move forwards. > > Perhaps I misunderstood. > > Anyway, > > * since then, she has drawn another one, discussed it a bit on IRC > (with you too, iirc), and we had a few ideas on how she could > improve it: > http://people.zoy.org/~carmie/tails/logo/IMG_20131212_122253.jpg I've never seen that one before. I like it much better! Adding it to Redmine. > * proposing a pose can be done without any drawing skills, just like > it's been done earlier on this thread: the web has plenty of cat > pictures :) Sure. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
