Feature #14520

Prepare & publish a blog post about testing Tails ISO reproducibility

Added by Anonymous 2017-08-30 09:46:47 . Updated 2017-09-25 12:54:52 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
intrigeri
Category:
Target version:
Tails_3.2
Start date:
2017-08-30
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
Type of work:
Communicate
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
Deliverable for:
301

Description

And announce it also on Twitter. Ask more people to try to build Tails reproducibly in September.

Files

test_building_tails_reproducibly.mdwn (9504 B) Anonymous, 2017-09-08 08:48:19

Subtasks

Related issues

Related to Tails - Feature #12630: Document how users can verify a reproducibly built ISO/IUK Resolved 2017-06-02
Related to Tails - Feature #14512: Send second email call to test reproducibility of Tails 3.2alpha1 Resolved 2017-08-30

History

#1 Updated by Anonymous 2017-08-30 09:47:06

  • related to Feature #12630: Document how users can verify a reproducibly built ISO/IUK added

#2 Updated by Anonymous 2017-08-30 09:47:39

  • related to Feature #14512: Send second email call to test reproducibility of Tails 3.2alpha1 added

#3 Updated by intrigeri 2017-09-07 11:12:29

  • Target version set to Tails_3.2

(As per the timeline in the ticket description.)

#4 Updated by intrigeri 2017-09-07 12:24:01

#5 Updated by Anonymous 2017-09-07 15:12:49

  • File <del>missing: test_building_tails_reproducibly.mdwn</del> added
  • Assignee set to intrigeri

Don’t hesitate to improve upon it if you think it’s not god enough.

#6 Updated by Anonymous 2017-09-07 15:15:33

  • File <del>missing: test_building_tails_reproducibly.mdwn</del> added

updated file

#7 Updated by Anonymous 2017-09-07 15:15:40

  • File deleted (test_building_tails_reproducibly.mdwn)

#8 Updated by Anonymous 2017-09-07 15:17:24

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
  • Assignee deleted (intrigeri)

The post is still lacking the SHA! I will need to add that before intrigeri can publish this.

#9 Updated by Anonymous 2017-09-08 08:48:21

Complete version.

#10 Updated by Anonymous 2017-09-08 08:48:31

  • File deleted (test_building_tails_reproducibly.mdwn)

#11 Updated by Anonymous 2017-09-08 08:50:07

  • Assignee set to intrigeri

There you go. Please don’t hesitate double checking the URLs, although it should be fine.
You may also modify the text if you prefer. I’m particularly unsure about the “tampered” sentence, but I let you judge and change it if needed.

#12 Updated by intrigeri 2017-09-08 09:23:24

  • Subject changed from Prepare a blog post about Reproducible Tails to Prepare & publish a blog post about testing Tails ISO reproducibility

#13 Updated by Anonymous 2017-09-08 13:18:57

Oh and there seems to be a mistake in the git tag it should be “-alpha” not “~alpha”. Can you please correct that? Thanks!

#14 Updated by Dr_Whax 2017-09-08 19:16:10

Another change would be:

changing 3.2-alpha1 to 3.2-alpha2.

and:

echo ‘deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian stretch-backports main’ \
| tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/stretch-backports.list && \
apt update && \
apt -o APT::Install-Recommends=“true” \
install diffoscope/stretch-backports

Plus I would recommend people do this in a chroot and not on their tails build machine just to not mess up things.

#15 Updated by intrigeri 2017-09-10 14:29:47

  • Status changed from In Progress to Resolved
  • % Done changed from 0 to 100

I’ve reworked a lot the text to make it shorter and (IMO) better structured and adapted to the target audience.

It’s now live: https://people.debian.org/~intrigeri/blog/posts/Can_you_reproduce_this_Tails_ISO/

#16 Updated by intrigeri 2017-09-10 14:31:46

Also, note that I think I’ve fixed a bug: we had a diffoscope && bzip2 command, and diffoscope(1) says “Exit status is 0 if inputs are the same, 1 if different, 2 if trouble”, so the bzip2 command would never be run as we’re comparing different ISO images here. Hoping this helps for next calls for testing :)

#17 Updated by Anonymous 2017-09-11 16:40:12

cool!

#18 Updated by sajolida 2017-09-22 11:52:34

Why didn’t we publish something like this on our blog? At least that what I thought this ticket was about…

#19 Updated by intrigeri 2017-09-22 12:05:51

> Why didn’t we publish something like this on our blog? At least that what I thought this ticket was about…

I think I was the one arguing against this. My rationale was that such a post would be too technical, and not actionable, for most readers of our blog. Now, we can surely hide it from /home and skip the announce tag, which mitigates this problem. I’m ready to let you decide something else though, you’re the boss in this area.

#20 Updated by Anonymous 2017-09-25 12:54:53

intrigeri wrote:
> > Why didn’t we publish something like this on our blog? At least that what I thought this ticket was about…
>
> I think I was the one arguing against this. My rationale was that such a post would be too technical, and not actionable, for most readers of our blog. Now, we can surely hide it from /home and skip the announce tag, which mitigates this problem. I’m ready to let you decide something else though, you’re the boss in this area.

I think that the people working on this project agreed to publish a very technical blog post on planet.debian.org for a very technical target audience. We can link to this blog post in our monthly report, for example, when reporting on RB.

And we actually still plan to publish a blog post for our users, which will explain what RB are, and how this will help them. This text is supposed to be much less technical.

Ack?