Port complex shell scripts into Python
Shell scripts are deceptively easy to quickly prototype proof-of-concepts with, but generally result in things with subtle bugs and high maintenance burden. A “real” language, like Python, is not plagued by these kinds of issues.
Make sure to read the blueprint!
team: hefee, muri, segfault, intrigeri (reviewer); kurono?
This will be part of FT work.
|Feature #11753: Port complex shell scripts shipped in /usr/local to Python||Resolved||
|Feature #11754: Port complex build shell scripts to Python||Confirmed||
|Bug #15370: Onion Circuits cannot be started in Tails 3.6~rc1||Resolved||
|Feature #15379: Adjust test suite to Python tails-upgrade-frontend-wrapper||Resolved||
|Bug #15845: Port fillram to Python3||Resolved||
|Related to Tails - Feature #6452: Factor out stuff into a Tails Python library||Confirmed||2013-11-29|
|Related to Tails - Feature #6145: Factor out stuff into a shell library||Confirmed||2013-11-14|
Related to Tails -
|Blocks Tails - Feature #16209: Core work: Foundations Team||Confirmed|
#3 Updated by sajolida 2016-04-23 08:53:37
- Assignee set to anonym
- Target version set to Tails_2.3
We got a pull request from GoodCrypto one month ago but it got no answer so far, so I’m tracking it here for anonym.
#7 Updated by intrigeri 2016-05-31 21:14:23
- Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
- Priority changed from Normal to Elevated
- Target version changed from Tails_2.5 to Tails_2.6
- % Done changed from 0 to 10
- QA Check set to Ready for QA
I won’t take this into a point-release (2.5), so postponing. Still, the initial pull request was sent 2 months ago, so it would be nice to start providing feedback without waiting 3 more months (2.6), so this has a chance to actually go into 2.6 :) Hence, raising priority.
#8 Updated by intrigeri 2016-07-27 10:31:31
#11 Updated by intrigeri 2016-08-31 00:50:29
> This is Ready for QA and has been waiting for 4 months now, so I think it still deserves to be on anonym’s radar for 2.6 (and not only on the roadmap for 2017).
I’ll file a subtask about the part that’s ready for QA, so we can differentiate between the bigger goal (2017) and the smaller bits (2.6).
#13 Updated by Anonymous 2017-06-30 11:24:02
- Assignee changed from sycamoreone to intrigeri
- QA Check set to Info Needed
> > This is Ready for QA and has been waiting for 4 months now, so I think it still deserves to be on anonym’s radar for 2.6 (and not only on the roadmap for 2017).
> I’ll file a subtask about the part that’s ready for QA, so we can differentiate between the bigger goal (2017) and the smaller bits (2.6).
@intrigeri, I can’t see this subtask anywhere. May you please add it?
#14 Updated by intrigeri 2017-06-30 11:45:58
- Assignee changed from intrigeri to sycamoreone
- QA Check deleted (
> @intrigeri, I can’t see this subtask anywhere. May you please add it?