Tails

#5 Updated by intrigeri 2016-01-02 03:51:44

FWIW it’s been pulled into xenial already.

#6 Updated by hans 2016-01-27 10:08:46

just an FYI, since I do a lot with Debian around Ubuntu releases. Here’s the process as I understand it:

• When an Ubuntu release is in dev mode, all changes to Debian/unstable are automatically imported, except where there are custom Ubuntu versions of the package

• there is a scheduled “DebianImportFreeze” for each release https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ReleaseSchedule

• between the DebianImportFreeze date and the final release, the automatic Debian/unstable import stops, and changes must be manually requested to be imported

• the automatic importing resumes when the next Ubuntu release is opened

#8 Updated by Anonymous 2016-01-28 18:31:00

So from what I see now with tails-installer is that Ubuntu has fetched automatically the latest version for Xenial, but not for Wily. That means, maybe we do not need to do blacklisting after all. We can upload packages to the PPA, and if ever there is a newer automatic version, people can install it. Otherwise, they would get it from the PPA.

Does this sound logical?

#10 Updated by sajolida 2016-01-29 14:13:53

I’m not sure to understand, so I’m rephrasing to clarify what this means to me.

• Wily is out already so yes, we won’t get tails-installer in Wily-universe automatically.
• The DebianImportFreeze is on February 18, so whatever version of tails-installer will be in Debian/unstable on this date would be imported by default in Xenial-universe unless we blacklist it. I’m glad we’re on time to take this decision!

So, if we don’t blacklist it to prevent its import to Xenial-universe, then could we:

• Instruct people running Xenial to use the version in Xenial-universe once Xenial is out.
• Continue to instruct people with Wily to use the version in Wily-PPA even once Xenial is out. Wily we be supported officially until July 2016 (9 months from October 2015), after that we can drop this special case.

• Whenever we publish a newer version of tails-installer after February 18 it won’t be in Xenial-universe automatically so we should decide whether it’s better to instruct people, depending on what’s fixed in the new version, to:
  • Use the old version in Xenial-universe which is simpler for them but might have problems (we’re probably releasing a new version for some reason).
  • Use the new version in Xenial-PPA which is more complicated. See the bug in adding a PPA documented on /install/debian/usb/.

Does this make sense?

#11 Updated by intrigeri 2016-01-29 14:55:53

FTR, it has been imported a while ago:

$ rmadison -u ubuntu tails-installer
tails-installer | 4.4.7+dfsg-1 | xenial/universe | source, amd64, i386

So I guess the question becomes: how do we have it removed?

> So, if we don’t blacklist it to prevent its import to Xenial-universe, then could we:

Unless there are new elements that make it worth revisiting the decision we made, I’d rather not put this option back on the table now. I’m all for revisiting it for Stretch+1 and the Ubuntu LTS after 16.04, though; we’ll have more information then. If someone wants to discuss it further, let’s please do it in a more suitable place than this ticket.

#12 Updated by Anonymous 2016-01-29 23:22:11

Hi, sorry for restarting the discussion then.

Actually, because it was imported automatically to Xenial, I was wondering if we should not actually let it be like this and not do blacklisting. My argument in favour of this is that the code of the installer will probably not change that much in the near future - and this would allow people to install it without bothering much. But my assumption might be very wrong.

Then we still would want people to use the PPA instead, because it might have a newer version.

But I understand the idea, and we can also do as we discussed first and see for a later version.

Note to self:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ArchiveAdministration#Blacklisting -> the process seems to be to bzr checkout and add a commit there with an explanation for the blacklist but i believe this is to be done only by a ubuntu dev.

#13 Updated by intrigeri 2016-01-30 23:46:23

> Actually, because it was imported automatically to Xenial, I was wondering if we should not actually let it be like this and not do blacklisting. My argument in favour of this is that the code of the installer will probably not change that much in the near future

I agree it won’t change that much. I’m under the impression, however, that it can still potentially change enough to put us in an awkward situation where we have to deal with users running various versions of Tails Installer, some of them having this or that feature, some of them not. From the top of my head, the UEFI support seems to be a good example of this kind of changes. I’m personally not going to commit to spend time dealing with that kind of problems, but if others want (on the packaging, doc and support sides), yay, I’m excited to see it happen!

> and this would allow people to install it without bothering much.

I agree this makes the “let’s get Tails Installer into Debian and Ubuntu releases” option very appealing.

#14 Updated by sajolida 2016-01-31 11:00:28

Sorry for the noise :(

#16 Updated by Anonymous 2016-02-10 17:37:15

intrigeri wrote:
> We’re approaching the last minute to remove the package from Xenial, so bumping priority and setting an up-to-date target version. Please let me know if you need help (and what for, exactly).

I know I’m very late on this. I’ve just sent a request to the ubuntu-archive maintainers with a request for the removal and told them that I’ll also open a bug report for it now. However, it’s not properly documented how to do such a request anywhere. That’s why…

#17 Updated by Anonymous 2016-02-10 18:11:01

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/tails-installer/+bug/1544207 ok, thanks to teward on #ubuntu-bugs.

#18 Updated by intrigeri 2016-02-10 21:28:39

Great to see this moving forward, and you learning bits of Ubuntu processes that may be useful again in the future; thanks! :)

#19 Updated by intrigeri 2016-03-03 18:12:13

What’s the status on this? Judging from the bug report on Launchpad only: I suggest poking people on the bug + IRC. If that’s not enough, let me know and I’ll try to ping some Ubuntu people who might remember me, but it’s better if I don’t have to ask them to do something in some kind of emergency :)

#24 Updated by intrigeri 2016-04-13 17:13:56

> I think we can close this ticket now.

Confirmed! rmadison -u ubuntu tails-installer now returns an empty output.