winterfa...@riseup.net wrote (02 Dec 2013 19:50:44 GMT) :
> Do you think it is enough to resolve the ticket (#6207)?
Replied on #6207.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intriger
winterfa...@riseup.net wrote (04 Dec 2013 13:07:41 GMT) :
> Besides IUK and perl5lib for which Transifex resources still does not
> exist, I believe I have resolved ticket #6207:
> See branch "import-translations" in the following repositories (all based
> on respective "master" branch):
> - wint
intrigeri wrote:
> I had a quick look at two of those.
>
> It does look good, but I must say the intense code duplication makes
> me wonder if we shouldn't instead add one single script to the Tails
> main repository, make it take the relevant parameters [...]
>
> What do you think?
Maybe. I canno
Hi,
after some initial reading, thinking and experiments regarding
UEFI support in Tails, I've come up with a first set of goals and
non-goals I believe to be reasonable to start with.
Quoting https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/UEFI/:
Goals
-
* devices produced by Tails Installer should boot
winterfa...@riseup.net wrote (06 Dec 2013 11:10:35 GMT) :
> intrigeri wrote:
>> It does look good, but I must say the intense code duplication makes
>> me wonder if we shouldn't instead add one single script to the Tails
>> main repository, make it take the relevant parameters [...]
>>
>> What do y
Hi,
please review'n'merge feature/monkeysign into devel (candidate for
0.23).
Ticket: #6338
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
Hi,
please review'n'merge feature/poedit-from-backports into devel
(candidate for 0.23). Ticket = #6456.
Note that as part of the merge, one has to remove our custom poedit
backport from our APT repository:
ssh repre...@incoming.deb.tails.boum.org \
reprepro removesrc devel poedit
The p
winterfairy wrote:
> intrigeri wrote:
>> It does look good, but I must say the intense code duplication makes
>> me wonder if we shouldn't instead add one single script to the Tails
>> main repository, make it take the relevant parameters [...]
>>
>> What do you think?
> Maybe. I cannot see whethe
