Bug #15353
Ledger Nano S hardware wallet is not recognized due to wrong udev rules
0%
Description
A user reported that Ledger Nano S hardware wallet wasn’t working out of the box in Tails due to the lack of the python-btchip package and wrong udev rules (all of it is detailed in this script : https://gist.github.com/anonymous/3db8ff0be1e80165121a2598a83c9327#file-ledger).
The full workaround is described there :
I don’t kow if there is something to do on Tails side other than maybe document this somewhere…
Subtasks
History
#1 Updated by intrigeri 2018-03-05 11:15:53
- Assignee changed from intrigeri to goupille
- QA Check set to Info Needed
- Affected tool set to Electrum
Do you have contact info for that user? Without it I’m afraid there’s not much I can do:
- the link advices to add Jessie non-free APT sources; I’ve no idea why given python-btchip is in Stretch/main
- in Tails 3.6 we’ll ship a version of Electrum that runs in Python 3, so that user will need to install python3-btchip/testing (unless someone backports it for Stretch → s7r?)
- the link does not explain the business it does with udev rules and why it’s needed; with that little info I’m not going to blindly ask upstream/Debian to add these rules
#2 Updated by goupille 2018-03-08 19:10:42
- Assignee changed from goupille to intrigeri
- QA Check deleted (
Info Needed)
I just sent you the original whisperback report (tagged as usual)
#3 Updated by intrigeri 2018-03-23 07:13:51
- Assignee changed from intrigeri to s7r
- Priority changed from Normal to Low
- Type of work changed from Research to Debian
If we want to support this hardware in Tails 3.x, we need python3-btchip in stretch-backports. s7r, how popular is this hardware, how important is it to support it? https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=btchip-python suggests it is a corner case but then https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=btchip-python looks just the same.
I’ll rely on you for prioritizing this request. And since the Additional Software Package feature will be vastly improved and user-friendly in Tails 3.9, IMO we should not include this package by default in Tails. But perhaps it would be nice to ensure users can install it themselves; but even if we don’t do anything, this will be the case in Tails 4.0 so well, perhaps we can just postpone this? :)
#4 Updated by s7r 2018-03-24 23:03:12
python3-btchip
is in testing, and it will be stable-backports
. I am not sure how popular this is and I don’t have enough statistic data to tell, but somehow I see a perfect pair in Tails in amnesic mode and hardware wallet so that I don’t have to write down my seed phrase somewhere.
I am also fine with it not being shipped by default, but users having a really simple and fast way to install it in no-time. What are the cons (or drawbacks) if we just ship it? because I am not sure users that need it will know they need it and need to perform this extra step.
#5 Updated by intrigeri 2018-03-26 08:29:48
> python3-btchip
is in testing, and it will be stable-backports
. I am not sure how popular this is and I don’t have enough statistic data to tell, but somehow I see a perfect pair in Tails in amnesic mode and hardware wallet so that I don’t have to write down my seed phrase somewhere.
Indeed. Let’s keep in mind that one single user requested this though.
Note that one can use Tails with a persistent volume used solely for Additional Software Packages, and an amnesic Electrum config. Then one can add hardware wallet support packages (e.g. python3-btchip
) to their Additional Software Packages and achieve the goal you’re describing. So this goal can be achieved without including python3-btchip
in the ISO. Or did I miss anything?
> I am also fine with it not being shipped by default, but users having a really simple and fast way to install it in no-time.
That’ll be the case in Tails 3.9 :)
> What are the cons (or drawbacks) if we just ship it?
- Bigger downloads for all users, including the 99.99% who don’t need it.
- Increased maintenance costs: more stuff that we have to maintain, that can break, that can become RC and be dropped from Debian testing, etc. I know that you volunteered to take care of this but as we’ve seen on
Bug #15390,Bug #15452,Bug #15189and here, even with your help Electrum and its dependencies does add work on my shoulders.
> because I am not sure users that need it will know they need it and need to perform this extra step.
I think we should add a note in wiki/src/doc/anonymous_internet/electrum.mdwn
telling them that “to support hardware wallet $X, install package $Y”.
#6 Updated by Anonymous 2018-08-16 11:30:25
- Assignee deleted (
s7r) - Type of work changed from Debian to End-user documentation
Looks like we should document:
wiki/src/doc/anonymous_internet/electrum.mdwn : “to support hardware wallet $X, install package $Y”."
The rest will be handled by ASP.