[Tails-dev] Release schedule 3.7

Hi, I'm doing the 3.7 bugfix release, which is supposed to happen on Wednesday. Due to other matters, I did not send a release schedule, so here's a late one: * 2018-05-07: - All branches targeting Tails 3.7 *must* be merged into the `stable` branch by 6:00 pm, CET. (contact me if some of

[Tails-dev] Release schedule for Tails 3.6

Hi, I'll be the release manager for Tails 3.6, which is a major release scheduled on 2018-03-13. The list of tickets targeting Tails 3.6 can be found here: https://labs.riseup.net/code/projects/tails/issues?query_id=277 Below you'll find the preliminary release schedule for Tails 3.6: *

[Tails-dev] Tails 3.1 release schedule

Hi, As it sometimes happen, I'll be the 3.1 release manager. I've finally settled on a schedule for it, here it is: * 2017-08-04, noon: all branches targeting Tails 3.1 must be merged * 2017-08-05: Import Tor Browser 7.0.2, build and upload Tails 3.1 * 2017-08-06: Start testing Tails 3.1

[Tails-dev] Jenkins build/test failure notifications are back!

Hi, You may remember we had to disable our CI notifications due to too many false positives. That lead us realizing that most of the developers were simply ignoring them all. Since then we have made progress on our test suite to get it more robust, as well as in our CI infra. So we are putting

Re: [Tails-dev] Tails build system update

Hi, On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 01:06:27PM +0200, intrigeri wrote: > bertagaz: > > we strongly advise to have a look at the build documentation > > [2] and adapt your usage. > > [...] > > [2] https://tails.boum.org/contribute/build > > I see no recent change made to

[Tails-dev] Tails build system update

Hi, In order to get Tails builds reproducible, we had to refactor the way we use vagrant in our build system [1]. Under the hood, a lot of our build scripts have changed, but for most use cases the transition should be transparent. We released today all this changes, so for developers that are

Re: [Tails-dev] Tor Browser 6.0.6 is ready for testing

Hi, On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 08:18:00AM +, Georg Koppen wrote: > FWIW: we are rebundling a final time to fix an issue with our donation > banner affecting OS X users. Just that you don't get confused as soon as > a -build8 shows up. Thanks for the notice! Would have scared me otherwise. :)

Re: [Tails-dev] Tor Browser 6.0.6 is ready for testing

Hi, On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 05:50:00PM +, Georg Koppen wrote: > > Tor Browser 6.0.6 is ready for testing. Bundles can be found on > > https://people.torproject.org/~boklm/builds/6.0.6-build5 Thanks! I see there's 6.0.6-build6 now, which seems to contain only minor changes related to the

Re: [Tails-dev] [tor-project] Anything wrong with "March 22-28, Amsterdam"?

Hi, On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 12:32:22PM -0400, intrigeri wrote: > > Roger Dingledine: > > We're considering to do our next big meeting March 22-28, 2017, in or > > near Amsterdam. > > These dates fit quite nicely with the in-person Stretch sprint we have > scheduled on March 13-17, that could

Re: [Tails-dev] Why Tails partition is non-deterministic?

Hi, [ Ignoring some kind of private answer sent here although it doesn't belong to this list. ] On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 09:32:17PM +0200, Joanna Rutkowska wrote: > Is there any special reason why the partition where Tails installs itself is > non-deterministic? It is thanks to differing

Re: [Tails-dev] Our Torbirdy patches needs refreshing

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:41:37AM +0200, intrigeri wrote: > bertagaz: > > Since the 2.5 release, it seems one of our Torbirdy patches are fuzzy, which > > makes the build of devel (and any branch based on it) fail. > > I suspect you mean "since torbirdy 0.2.0-1~bpo8+

Re: [Tails-dev] Our Torbirdy patches needs refreshing

Hi again, On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 11:44:27AM +0200, intrigeri wrote: > u: > > Question 1: how urgent is this? > > In general: keeping the Git tree building is high priority because > otherwise any development based on the branch that fails to build > is blocked. > > Right now: I don't know

[Tails-dev] Our Torbirdy patches needs refreshing

Hi, Since the 2.5 release, it seems one of our Torbirdy patches are fuzzy, which makes the build of devel (and any branch based on it) fail. I have not really followed this part of Tails development, so I can't really take care of that myself. Would be very nice if someone from the Icedove team

Re: [Tails-dev] Firmware

Hi, On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 05:38:58PM -, astro...@sigaint.org wrote: > > I have Intel's Chipsec Linux Driver working for Tails 1.8.2. Interesting! > It's written as an open-source automatic installer that downloads all of > the relevant files before building so that subsequent builds may

Re: [Tails-dev] Releasing automated tests

Hi, On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 02:38:00PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: > bertagaz wrote (18 Nov 2015 12:34:34 GMT) : > > Intrigeri, what's on your opinion on [...] > > Please give me an explicit deadline. I probably won't be able to work on it before week 49 anyway, so no rush, but a

Re: [Tails-dev] Releasing automated tests

Hi, Sorry for the late reply. On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 04:52:31PM +, anonym wrote: > sajolida: > > anonym: > >> sajolida: > > From: intrigeri > > Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:08:31 +0200 > > > > FTR I dislike the idea of blacklisting such branches based on

[Tails-dev] Tails test suite deployed in Jenkins

Hi, Since a week or so, we had a preview of how the test suite would run on the ISO built by Jenkins when there a re changes for the devel, stable and experimental branches. Tonight I've deployed this setup for all the active branches in our Git. Contributors, beware, Jenkins is watching you:

Re: [Tails-dev] Tails contributors meeting: Saturday October 03

Hi, On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 12:00:01AM -0700, sajolida wrote: > The next Tails contributors meeting is scheduled for: > > Saturday 03 October > #tails-dev on irc.oftc.net >9 pm in Paris >8 pm in London >3 pm in New-York > 12 pm in San Francisco I won't

Re: [Tails-dev] jenkins.t.b.o and nightly.t.b.o downtime

Hi, On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 04:36:11PM +0200, intrigeri wrote: > bertagaz wrote (05 Sep 2015 14:52:22 GMT) : > > > Note to those who use it in a script, the link to the latest ISO of a > > build has changed a bit from > > http://nightly.tails.boum.org/$BUILD/la

[Tails-dev] Sep. 2015 monthly meeting notes

Hi, I just pushed our last meeting notes. For those who attended, please review and correct. Bert. ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to

Re: [Tails-dev] jenkins.t.b.o and nightly.t.b.o downtime

On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 03:44:30PM +0200, bertagaz wrote: > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 10:27:45AM +0200, bertagaz wrote: > > Due to some infra change (#9597), jenkins.tails.boum.org and > > nightly.tails.boum.org will be down for some (hopefully short) time > > tod

[Tails-dev] jenkins.t.b.o and nightly.t.b.o downtime

Hi, Due to some infra change (#9597), jenkins.tails.boum.org and nightly.tails.boum.org will be down for some (hopefully short) time today. Progress will be tracked on the ticket, if you're in need of one of them, have a look there. bert. ___

Re: [Tails-dev] jenkins.t.b.o and nightly.t.b.o downtime

Hi again, On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 10:27:45AM +0200, bertagaz wrote: > Due to some infra change (#9597), jenkins.tails.boum.org and > nightly.tails.boum.org will be down for some (hopefully short) time > today. > > Progress will be tracked on the ticket, if you're in need of one

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated tests specification

Hi, On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 01:12:39PM +0200, intrigeri wrote: > > I think that's not a blocker for the first iteration, though: if videos > are added between Oct. 15 and Jan. 15, I'm happy :) > > bertagaz, time to create tickets that sum this up, or do we need > more

Re: [Tails-dev] Release schedule for Tails 1.6

d be very happy. > > I suggest that someone who wanted to get started with RM work (that > would be... tadam... bertagaz!) does it. I can assist them on IRC > as needed. Seems that we had the same idea. :) I refrained a bit to reply, as to be honest my plate is already quite loaded for th

Re: [Tails-dev] Release schedule for Tails 1.6

Hi, On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 01:03:41PM +0200, anonym wrote: > > Yes, the "Go wild!" section only. I will have prepared the body for the > Tor Blog post an made sure to communicate it to you somehow. I (or > BitingBird? :)) can do the "Bug tracker" section too. So, yeah, it > should be about 10

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated tests specification

On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:59:09PM +0200, anonym wrote: > On 09/01/2015 12:23 PM, intrigeri wrote: > > bertagaz wrote (26 Aug 2015 17:52:26 GMT) : > >> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:38:19PM +0200, anonym wrote: > >>> The current proposal seems to be to onl

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated tests specification

Hi, On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 12:04:39PM +0200, intrigeri wrote: > bertagaz wrote (28 Aug 2015 14:24:51 GMT) : > > > > But then, often the screen capture are enought to identify why > > a step failed to run. > > In my experience, sometimes, what would help unde

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated tests specification

Hi, On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 06:57:05PM +0200, anonym wrote: > On 09/01/2015 12:04 PM, intrigeri wrote: > > bertagaz wrote (28 Aug 2015 14:24:51 GMT) : > >> I've also added a new section about the result to keep: > > > >> ## What kind of result shall be kept

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated tests specification

Hi, On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 07:46:17PM +0200, anonym wrote: On 08/26/2015 07:21 PM, bertagaz wrote: The rational behind my proposal was that it would at least raise the issue if there were some external changes that breaks the build of this feature branch (mostly, changes in APT/Debian

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated tests specification

Hi, Many thanks for your deep review and opinion share. More below. On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:00:25PM +0200, anonym wrote: On 07/01/2015 07:19 PM, intrigeri wrote: bertagaz wrote (25 Jun 2015 09:41:23 GMT) : for feature branches, we could run the full test suite only on the daily builds

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated tests specification

Hi, On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:38:19PM +0200, anonym wrote: On 06/25/2015 11:41 AM, bertagaz wrote: Looks great! For the record, I looked at the spec as of commit e70f8e7. Thanks! I'm cheating, most of the work has already been done when we designed the autobuilds. :D # Facts Running

Re: [Tails-dev] Package Tor Monitor

Hi, On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:53:43AM +, Alan wrote: After reading the documentation and the code of the build system extensions I use to support python desktop applications (python-distutils-extra), I came to the conclusion that your request is not supported. I looked for other

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated tests specification

Hola, On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:58:32PM +0200, bertagaz wrote: So please contributors, take some time reading and commenting on this blueprint. Most of it is a copy of the automated builds one, as it is the next step in the chain and the previous one defined already most of our design

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated tests specification

Hi, On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 04:52:12PM +0200, intrigeri wrote: bertagaz wrote (09 Jul 2015 13:28:23 GMT) : On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 07:19:04PM +0200, intrigeri wrote: bertagaz wrote (25 Jun 2015 09:41:23 GMT) : Indeed I find it too vague so I've rephrased this paragraph (414e4f3

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated tests specification

Hi Thanks for your answer! On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 07:19:04PM +0200, intrigeri wrote: bertagaz wrote (25 Jun 2015 09:41:23 GMT) : I've prepared a blueprint to start this discussion and take notes of the decisions: https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/automated_builds_and_tests

Re: [Tails-dev] [review'n'merge:1.4.1] feature/9560-tor-0.2.6.9

been updated after we decided to include said patch, gah). I resumed work on this today and according to our test suite it works fine. Alan, bertagaz: any taker? Another pull request (for #9649) will follow later today. In any case, I'll have to merge this before building the 1.4.1 ISO. I

[Tails-dev] Automated tests specification

Hi, As the automated builds are soon going to be put in production (yes, they are), it's time to start the second round of discussion about the next coming Tails CI feature: automated testing of these automated build ISOs. Yay! I've prepared a blueprint to start this discussion and take notes

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:30:28AM +0200, anonym wrote: On 06/16/2015 02:41 PM, bertagaz wrote: On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 01:59:06PM +0200, intrigeri wrote: anonym wrote (30 Mar 2015 07:48:28 GMT) : On 29/03/15 15:04, bertagaz wrote: Wild (possibly unrelated) idea: instead of only

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

) : On 29/03/15 15:04, bertagaz wrote: However, one point it raises (added to the blueprint) is determining who would be notified of this kind of build on failure. Given the way we've chosen to implement post-APT-upload builds for this first iteration, I have my doubts wrt. whether we can

Re: [Tails-dev] Build failed in Jenkins: build_Tails_ISO_experimental #2313

Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:36:14AM -0700, tails-sysadm...@boum.org wrote: + . /etc/jenkins/environment + ARTIFACTS_ROOT_DIR=/srv/www + /usr/local/bin/clean_old_jenkins_artifacts.rb -t /srv/www/build_Tails_ISO_experimental [ArtifactDeployer] - Starting deployment from the post-action ...

Re: [Tails-dev] Fw: schneier.com comments

Hi, On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 06:27:43AM +, goupille wrote: Hi! a user send us that... cheers. Begin forwarded message: FYI from last 100 comments @ Schneier.com: This is FUD someone is spreading since some time on the schneier website comments. She didn't read the warning on top

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

://ci.openstack.org/zuul/zuul.html) recently, and this made me aware of quite a few issues similar to the one you're raising here. Lots of food for thought, forwarded to bertagaz already. Now, let's put things back into perspective: what bertagaz and Jurre are working on so far is expending what we currently

Re: [Tails-dev] [review'n'merge: 1.3.2] feature/tor-browser-4.0.6

Hi, On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 07:15:13PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: bertagaz wrote (28 Mar 2015 16:30:24 GMT) : Everything works fine, except that I can't connect to eepsites when testing i2p. It does seem to be the case with 1.3.1 too though, so that's not really a regression. It worked

Re: [Tails-dev] [review'n'merge: 1.3.2] feature/tor-browser-4.0.6

Hi, On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 07:55:28PM +0100, anonym wrote: Hi, Ticket: https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/9121 Please review and merge into stable and devel. Build it and started to run the automated tests on it. Will also do some of the manual ones concerned by this branch. bert.

Re: [Tails-dev] [review'n'merge: 1.3.2] feature/tor-browser-4.0.6

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 01:00:24PM +0100, bertagaz wrote: Hi, Build it and started to run the automated tests on it. Will also do some of the manual ones concerned by this branch. I've run successfully this tests from the automated suite: checks.feature i2p.feature pidgin.feature

Re: [Tails-dev] [review'n'merge: 1.3.2] bugfix/9011-fix-syndaemon-vs-florence

Hi, On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 06:05:40PM +0100, anonym wrote: Please review and merge into stable and devel. Bonus points for also merging it into feature/jessie, and then: git revert 430709a8efad146d30980a2e3377a4e00be3e995 and adding something like This was a Wheezy-specific

Re: [Tails-dev] [review'n'merge: 1.3.2] bugfix/8687-macchanger-return-status

Hi, On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 01:26:50PM +0100, anonym wrote: Please review and merge into stable and devel. Merged in stable, but forgot devel, thanks to have corrected this. bert. ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org

Re: [Tails-dev] Fwd: [Mozilla Enterprise] Firefox ESR 31.5.2 release

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:57:52AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, seems like we should start preparing an emergency point-release... what are you folks availability or lack thereof to prepare it, test it, and get it out of the door? I can find time this week end and on Monday or Tuesday.

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

Hi, On Sun, Mar 01, 2015 at 12:49:35PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: bertagaz wrote (27 Feb 2015 10:07:03 GMT) : Does that sound better to you? At least it does sound better to me: the problem at hand is detecting the transition of a branch between inactive and active state. When coming back

Re: [Tails-dev] Heads up! Git history has been rewritten, *you* have to do something [Was: Rewriting the Git repository]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 06:57:16PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, Non-Git-committers can skip what follows, but Git committers should probably read it. Note that Git hooks have been set up so that we should *not* be able to mistakenly push obsolete, deleted tags (jenkins-*..) nor any branch

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:21:23PM +0100, anonym wrote: On 11/01/15 20:07, Jurre van Bergen wrote: https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/automated_builds_and_tests/autobuild_specs/ Sorry for joining in so late. All looks good, and I only have minor concerns. Developers should be able to

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

Hi, On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:56:02AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: bertagaz wrote (19 Feb 2015 18:15:35 GMT) : On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:32:59PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: I like this idea, simple and effective. :) So for the base branches, the RM would be the contact point for daily

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 09:51:48AM +, sajolida wrote: The Global build stats Jenkins plugin [1] seems interesting to display the stats once more logs are kept. Shall I install it? I would love to have stats about the number of branches and ISO built and tested each day to put in our

Re: [Tails-dev] Git branches to delete: review needed

Hi, On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 05:24:51PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, Please have a look and shout if there's something in there that we should keep. Can't find something that doesn't seem in its place for what I can tell. Also, if you're Alan, anonym, bertagaz or sajolida, look for your

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

Hi, On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:32:59PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: bertagaz wrote (16 Feb 2015 14:32:57 GMT) : On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:49:02PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: That's a logical awesome idea I'm ashamed not to have had sooner. Still, it seems that it comes too late, after some

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

Hi, On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 04:39:22PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: bertagaz wrote (16 Feb 2015 12:03:12 GMT) : Ack, sounds reasonable. However from what I've seen, it sometimes means a lot of branches so I wonder if we scaled our infra enough for that, as we didn't include this branches in our

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 09:47:51PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: bertagaz wrote (16 Feb 2015 14:37:56 GMT) : On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:22:45AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Here's one more: the proposed notification mechanism makes sense to me for topic branches. But for base branches, it's more

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:29:45PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, bertagaz wrote (18 Jan 2015 16:39:28 GMT) : 0. Do we think we might also need or want a mechanism to blacklist a branch, or we should just assume that our algos will only select the right ones and not hit any corner cases

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

Hi, Thx for the extensive review! On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:49:02PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: We're already drafted some scenario's on: https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/automated_builds_and_tests/autobuild_specs/ I have a few concerns, though: * Scenario 2 : developer doesn't make it

Re: [Tails-dev] review and merge feature/7752-keyringer

On Sun, Feb 01, 2015 at 11:49:40AM +, sajolida wrote: Emma Peel: sajolida sajol...@pimienta.org wrote: Ticket: https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/7752 Branch: feature/7752-keyringer into devel Milestone: 1.3 At the end of the documentation it says: Make sure to update

Re: [Tails-dev] Deadline [was: Re: Automated builds specification]

On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 12:25:14PM +0100, bertagaz wrote: Given we had inputs from most of the usual suspects in this discussion (sometimes in side channels), and the proposals have been made since a little while, I'd say we can put a deadline on: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 23:59:59 + So

Re: [Tails-dev] [review'n'merge:1.3] bugfix/quote-wrappers-arguments (#8830, #8603)

) affects e.g. Git cloning over SSH, which should be tested when reviewing #8680 too, so I've assigned this new merge request to bertagaz (who took #8680 a week ago) for review. bertagaz, if that's not OK with you, please de-assign yourself. Tested by hand, wget and git works fine, so merged

Re: [Tails-dev] [review'n'merge:1.3] feature/7999-Vietnamese-input

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:07:31AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: this branch adds support for Vietnamese input via the IBus Unikey engine. Please review'n'merge into devel for 1.3. I'm not much comfortable with the workaround of Debian bug #714932, I think the patch lying in this bug report would

Re: [Tails-dev] Sandboxing Tor Browser: strategy for tracking upstream AppArmor profile

On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 12:10:31PM +0100, anonym wrote: On 04/02/15 11:36, intrigeri wrote: [...] Good enough? Shall we try that and see? I've implemented #3 already, and can do #1 and #2 for Tails 1.3.1. I'm convinced and have nothing more to add than well done!. :) I do too. That

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

Hi, On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 08:14:55PM +0100, bertagaz wrote: On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 08:07:46PM +, sajolida wrote: bertagaz: 0. We might also want a mechanism for devs to pro-actively state they want to keep their branches being build even if the last commit was older than

Re: [Tails-dev] AdBlock Plus in Tails' Tor Browser

Hi, This answer might pop up late now that #8665 is in Ready for QA state, still it might bring new questions. Sorry for that. On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 12:49:10AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: mercedes508 wrote (22 Jan 2015 17:54:53 GMT) : And I'm wondering how important the fingerrint issue is,

Re: [Tails-dev] Sandboxing Tor Browser: strategy for tracking upstream AppArmor profile

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 08:50:28PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: I'm working on #5525 (Sandbox the web browser), and have an AppArmor profile that works locally for most basic use cases. Now, I'm wondering how to integrate it into Tails and I need your input. I think we have two solutions:

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

Hi, On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 08:07:46PM +, sajolida wrote: bertagaz: 0. We might also want a mechanism for devs to pro-actively state they want to keep their branches being build even if the last commit was older than the last release. IIRC If I understand correctly, adding

Re: [Tails-dev] Automated builds specification

Hi, Some thoughts and questions, raised in parts from past IRL discussions. Consider it like a ping for this thread. :) On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 08:07:13PM +0100, Jurre van Bergen wrote: Hi, For the first iteration, which is automatically build of interesting branches, we need to specify:

Re: [Tails-dev] [review'n'merge:1.2.3] feature/8518-save-packages-list

On Sat, Jan 03, 2015 at 11:19:21AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, this is a very simple first step towards implementing #6297. The infrastructure (Puppet) bits have already been merged. The short-term goal is to have reproducible.debian.net track the status of the Debian packages we use

Re: [Tails-dev] idea: stop HDD by default?

Hi, On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 04:53:28PM +, flapflap wrote: I was thinking whether it makes sense to by default spin-down the harddisks, e.g. via hdparm -y /dev/sdX or hdparm -Y /dev/sdX That would have the advantage of reduced power consumption, less noise (up to complete silence when

[Tails-dev] Lizard services outage

Hi, To prepare Lizard to host its new shiny hardware, it needs to get its kernel upgraded to the Wheezy-backports one to support such new bones. But the upgrade seems to raise troubles in the virtual network firewalling, so expect outages of Lizard's services today while I'm trying to debug it

Re: [Tails-dev] Build failed in Jenkins: build_Tails_ISO_experimental #1457

Hi, On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 06:29:31PM +, Alan wrote: These are the result of review and merges that built fine on my machine. I don't understand where is the problem... Network troubles as I read it : Translation-en 404 Not Found Fetched 24.5 MB in 40min 47s (10.0 kB/s) W: Failed to

Re: [Tails-dev] [review'n'merge:1.3] bugfix/8082-remove-PulseAudio-warning

Hi, On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:58:38PM +0200, intrigeri wrote: Hi, please merge bugfix/8082-remove-PulseAudio-warning into devel, for Tails 1.3. Merged, congrats. bert. ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge feature/dont_autostart_iceweasel + test/dont_autostart_iceweasel

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 05:53:49PM +0100, berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote: On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 11:52:20AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, intrigeri wrote (09 Jan 2014 10:26:11 GMT) : I patched it so it needs another review before merging. Sorry... I'll take care of it. Updated

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge feature/dont_autostart_iceweasel + test/dont_autostart_iceweasel

On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 11:52:20AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, intrigeri wrote (09 Jan 2014 10:26:11 GMT) : I patched it so it needs another review before merging. Sorry... I'll take care of it. Updated the ticket. Done and merged. Now, what about the test/dont_autostart_iceweasel

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge feature/torbutton-1.6.5.3 (#6566)

for the sake of easing bug reporting upstream etc. It passes the automated test suite (torified_browsing, unsafe_browser features). Candidate for 0.22.1 = please merge into stable and devel. No commits, only an APT merge to do. Assigned to bertagaz, but if e.g. Alan wants to do it, I'm sure

Re: [Tails-dev] Release schedule for Tails 0.22.1

soon (Torbutton and Iceweasel prefs updates). bertagaz said he would take care of these ones today: * #6496 (Drop sqlite3, nss and nspr backports from our APT repository) * #6477 (getTorbuttonUserAgent differs from browser user-agent) I'll finish these tonight, already spend my afternoon

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge test/rjb-migration

On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 07:36:15PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote (27 Dec 2013 09:36:32 GMT) : Just one word to sum up my feelings: hurray! :) :) The test suite is now entirely green for me, with the two known exceptions that are documented (git grep XXX --

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge feature/torbrowser-24.2.0esr-1+tails1

listed on the ticket from our APT repo. Then, we can 1. drop the corresponding temporary APT pinning rules since they won't be needed anymore; 2. take care of #6497 (I'm on it). Assigned to bertagaz for review, candidate for 0.22.1. Done, branch merged in devel (git and APT repo), packages

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge bugfix/6536-IE-icon-in-Windows-camouflage-mode

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:55:39AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote (29 Dec 2013 23:37:53 GMT) : Candidate for 0.22.1 = please merge into stable and devel. While testing other branches, I tested this one too, so I merged it too. Cool! It seems you forgot to merge

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge feature/torbrowser-24.2.0esr-1+tails1

On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 12:53:30AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote (29 Dec 2013 23:34:43 GMT) : Assigned to bertagaz for review, candidate for 0.22.1. Done, branch merged in devel (git and APT repo), packages removed from the APT repo, in the devel suite

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge test/rjb-migration

it looks like the Windows camouflage script misses an update for FF24. Reported as #6536, will try to fix in time for 0.22.1 as it's a regression. I'm testing a fix for this. Once I'm done with validating this part of the test suite, I'll ask bertagaz to review all the commits I've

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge test/rjb-migration

On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 08:36:57PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote (24 Dec 2013 11:39:27 GMT) : and then run the test suite. I get the same error you had a week ago or so: Call to virDomainCreateWithFlags failed: unsupported configuration:

[Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge test/rjb-migration

Hi, Now that a more recent libvirt containing patches to support the removable flag for USB devices has been uploaded to Wheezy-backports, I've updated the test/rjb-migration feature branch so that installation now is easy for anyone running Wheezy. Test process of this branch should be to start

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge feature/monkeysign

On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:26:32AM +0100, intrigeri wrote: berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote (17 Dec 2013 22:29:20 GMT) : I've just reported this problem upstream. Being the one that raised the issue. I could have done that myself after our discussion. Credits, etc... I felt it was my

Re: [Tails-dev] Last steps toward enabling incremental upgrades by default [

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:36:29PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote (17 Dec 2013 18:10:18 GMT) : Congrats, I'm excited to see this coming in the wild! :) ... and I'm scared to discover the remaining bugs we've missed :] Next steps: * bertagaz

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge feature/monkeysign

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:06:53AM +, sajol...@pimienta.org wrote: intrigeri: Merged I push a minor documentation fix with commit f0762cd. Shall I merge it myself? That seems minor and relevant, I guess you can. :) even if this might need a bit of documentationi though, as

Re: [Tails-dev] Last steps toward enabling incremental upgrades by default [Was: Please test incremental upgrades (from 0.22~rc1 to 0.22~rc2)]

phase three tickets accordingly: https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/6014 Yay. Congrats, I'm excited to see this coming in the wild! Next steps: * bertagaz reviews feature/incremental-upgrades-integration (but does not merge it yet) and hopefully ACK's it; ETA? I'll try to do

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge feature/monkeysign

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:27:57PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, berta...@ptitcanardnoir.org wrote (17 Dec 2013 11:44:11 GMT) : Doesn't piping it to Mutt work? monkeysign currently being command-line only, I was thinking more of Mutt users than Claws Mail's ones when I thought we

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge bugfix/tor-0.2.4-is-stable [Was: Build broken, stay tuned (or try bugfix/tor-0.2.4-is-stable)]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 11:50:06PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, intrigeri wrote (13 Dec 2013 13:38:02 GMT) : all our branches currently fail to build since deb.tpo's tor-0.2.4.x-squeeze APT source was deprecated, as Tor 0.2.4.x was declared stable. = please review

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge bugfix/use-our-own-sqlite

On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 04:31:17PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, Mike Homey has made his last Iceweasel package use some in-tree libraries instead of the system one, and hence has removed some of these libraries from mozilla.d.n's squeeze-backports repository. Too bad we need these

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge feature/torbutton-1.6.5.1

and detect issues ASAP. Please review'n'merge into devel (not testing, IMHO it's not worth it). bertagaz volunteered to take care of it. Merged into APT, but git refused to merge it in devel, already up-to-date it says, surprisingly. :) Shall I merge into testing and experimental too, now

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge bugfix/unsafe-browser-vs.-FF24

. bertagaz volunteered to take care of it. Merged. bert. ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge feature/monkeysign

On Fri, Dec 06, 2013 at 08:39:58PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, please review'n'merge feature/monkeysign into devel (candidate for 0.23). Ticket: #6338 Merged even if this might need a bit of documentationi though, as monkeysign errors out with a backtrace if one don't use the --no-mail

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge bugfix/back-to-linux-3.10 [Was: Fix sdmem on Intel graphic hardware, please review]

On Mon, Dec 02, 2013 at 02:43:21PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, intrigeri wrote (01 Dec 2013 19:19:51 GMT) : Done. Didn't see issues when building and starting it. Plus it had lot of tests lately. So merged into testing and devel, both in git and APT. bert.

Re: [Tails-dev] Tor Browser branding in Tails?

features/images/IceweaselRunning.png -- does that part of the new Iceweasel/Tor browser still look the same? (Sorry, I don't have time (or the bandwidth) to check this myself right now.) The window titlebar icon doesn't change so I hope it does not break the test suite. bertagaz

Re: [Tails-dev] Scripts for importing Transifex translations, please review

On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 04:08:35PM +0100, intrigeri wrote: Hi, winterfa...@riseup.net wrote (29 Nov 2013 14:14:46 GMT) : Please review and merge: - repo winterfairy/tails, branch import-translations (based on devel) Merged and pushed some refactoring commits on top. bertagaz

Re: [Tails-dev] Please review'n'merge feature/incremental-upgrades

as planned and announced previously. bertagaz volunteered to review'n'merge it already.) Ok, didn't see any problems in there so I merged it, in git and APT. Updated the tickets too. I hope my lame perl understanding didn't miss something in iuk's code, but maybe this review wasn't needed. bert

  1   2   >