Tails

#1 Updated by sajolida 2016-07-16 03:57:25

• Assignee deleted (None)
• QA Check set to Info Needed

u: Do you think you could work on this? I don’t mind helping with filling up the XML file but I’m not sure I can figure out what’s required, where to fit this in the source code, and test stuff without going nut. We could also ask help to muri who’s interested in learning Debian packaging. AppStream will become a standard for graphical apps so something to know to create Debian packages in the future.

Note: not having this is quite serious for Ubuntu 16.04 users but I’ll try to document a workaround until we get there.

#2 Updated by sajolida 2016-07-16 03:58:52

• Description updated

#3 Updated by sajolida 2016-07-16 04:00:25

• blocks Feature #11378: Make Tails Installer installable through Ubuntu Software added

#5 Updated by muri 2016-07-16 06:05:41

• File 0001-Added-an-AppStream-metadata-file.patch added
• File 0002-Add-the-AppStream-metadata-file-to-the-files-to-be-i.patch added
• % Done changed from 0 to 30
• QA Check changed from Info Needed to Ready for QA

attached two patches, one adds the appstream metadata file (based on the one from eog, remove a lot of stuff and then compared with the one from onionshare). with that file tails-installer shows up in gnome-software.
the second patch adds the file to the files to be installed on linux (i don’t know python very well or setuptools at all)

#6 Updated by intrigeri 2016-07-16 06:59:43

• Target version set to Tails_2.6

u, wanna review this during the 2.6 cycle? Otherwise reassign to our RM for 2.6 (anonym).

#7 Updated by sajolida 2016-07-16 16:43:39

• Assignee set to sajolida

I’ll have a look first as this is basically about describing Tails Installer to people who might not yet know what it is. Then I’ll pass on to u for the more technical review and testing.

And since we’re doing this basically to fix the Ubuntu installation, could it be considered as a bugfix branch? Of course, RM will have the last say :)

#8 Updated by sajolida 2016-07-17 11:24:09

• Assignee deleted (sajolida)
• Feature Branch set to feature/11569-appstream-metadata

Cool, that was easier than I thought! I pushed a bunch of commits in feature/11569-appstream-metadata.

#11 Updated by intrigeri 2016-07-21 06:40:17

• Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress

#13 Updated by anonym 2016-09-20 16:54:14

• Target version changed from Tails_2.6 to Tails_2.7

#15 Updated by Anonymous 2016-11-09 15:59:45

• Target version changed from Tails_2.7 to Tails_2.9.1

I started to review this but did not test it fully yet. Won’t be ready for the next release.

#16 Updated by anonym 2016-12-14 20:11:26

• Target version changed from Tails_2.9.1 to Tails 2.10

#17 Updated by anonym 2017-01-24 20:48:51

• Target version changed from Tails 2.10 to Tails_2.11

#18 Updated by anonym 2017-03-09 14:00:29

• Target version changed from Tails_2.11 to Tails_2.12

#19 Updated by intrigeri 2017-04-20 07:06:25

• Target version changed from Tails_2.12 to Tails_3.0

Feel free to reassign to the RM if you prefer someone else to complete this review :)

#20 Updated by intrigeri 2017-04-20 07:08:00

• Priority changed from Normal to Elevated

(This blocks Feature #11378 that sajolida wants to tackle in 2017Q2, for good reasons IMO since our instructions have been broken on Ubuntu since a year => bumping priority.)

#21 Updated by Anonymous 2017-04-27 09:28:15

• Assignee set to anonym

Reassiging to anonym to complete this review. thanks!

#22 Updated by anonym 2017-05-04 11:15:15

• Feature Branch changed from feature/11569-appstream-metadata to tails-installer:feature/11569-appstream-metadata

#23 Updated by intrigeri 2017-05-20 07:06:05

• Target version changed from Tails_3.0 to Tails_3.0~rc1
• % Done changed from 30 to 80
• QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

I’ve tried to validate this file with:

appstream-util validate data/tails-installer.appdata.xml
appstream-util validate-relax data/tails-installer.appdata.xml
appstream-util validate-strict data/tails-installer.appdata.xml

… and got a bunch of errors. I’ve fixed the most important ones and now:

• validate-relax is happy
• validate only complains about <screenshot> width too small [https://screenshots.debian.net/screenshots/000/014/555/large.png]
• validate-strict complains about:
  • <screenshot> aspect ratio not 16:9 [https://screenshots.debian.net/screenshots/000/014/555/large.png]
  • missing translations

IMO that’s good enough so I’ve merged it into the master branch. But it would be nice if muri or u could create a ticket about the 2 remaining screenshot issues :)

anonym, please make sure you pull current master when you build a new package for 3.0~rc1.

#24 Updated by intrigeri 2017-05-22 06:49:15

• Assignee deleted (anonym)
• Target version changed from Tails_3.0~rc1 to Tails_3.0
• Type of work changed from Code to Debian

tails-installer (4.4.14+dfsg-0tails1) fixes this. Next step is to get it into Debian and Ubuntu, as that’s where this change will matter => reassigning to our packages maintainer. Please set an adequate target version.

#25 Updated by Anonymous 2017-05-31 08:31:39

• Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
• % Done changed from 80 to 100

I have already uploaded these packages to Debian and Ubuntu a week ago.
The last remaining thing to do is to build and upload a backport for Jessie.
This is on my todo list, thus closing this ticket.