Tails

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2018-09-10 11:58:55

• Assignee set to sajolida
• Target version set to Tails_3.10.1
• Parent task set to Feature #14468
• Type of work changed from Website to End-user documentation
• Deliverable for set to 299

#2 Updated by intrigeri 2018-09-13 20:30:59

• Assignee changed from sajolida to segfault
• QA Check set to Info Needed

Note that https://tails.boum.org/doc/encryption_and_privacy/veracrypt/ documents this limitation already. Good enough?

By the way, why do we expose the PIM option to users if we don’t support it? It feels a bit unpolished and as you said, it confuses users. How hard would it be to hide the corresponding widgets?

#3 Updated by segfault 2018-09-13 21:12:31

• Assignee changed from segfault to sajolida
• QA Check deleted (Info Needed)

intrigeri wrote:
> Note that https://tails.boum.org/doc/encryption_and_privacy/veracrypt/ documents this limitation already. Good enough?

My suggestion was to add it to the known issues of 3.9, so that testers would stop reporting it. But I didn’t get that many reports about it and none since a few days, so maybe it’s not that important.

> By the way, why do we expose the PIM option to users if we don’t support it? It feels a bit unpolished and as you said, it confuses users. How hard would it be to hide the corresponding widgets?

I know it’s ugly, but it’s pretty hard to fix.

To hide the PIM option in Disks, I think we would have to add a property or method to the udisks D-Bus bus, which tells Disks whether it supports the PIM or not.

Hiding the PIM option in GNOME Shell is even harder, because the Shell doesn’t talk to udisks directly. We think we would have to patch at least GVfs and probably also GTK and GLib.

#5 Updated by intrigeri 2018-09-14 05:03:55

• Assignee changed from sajolida to segfault
• QA Check set to Info Needed

>> By the way, why do we expose the PIM option to users if we don’t support it? It feels a bit unpolished and as you said, it confuses users. How hard would it be to hide the corresponding widgets?

> I know it’s ugly, but it’s pretty hard to fix.

> To hide the PIM option in Disks, I think we would have to add a property or method to the udisks D-Bus bus, which tells Disks whether it supports the PIM or not.

> Hiding the PIM option in GNOME Shell is even harder, because the Shell doesn’t talk to udisks directly. We think we would have to patch at least GVfs and probably also GTK and GLib.

Thank you for the quick turnaround :) But — sorry I was unclear! — actually I meant unconditionally hiding these widgets in our Stretch backports of the relevant packages, not cleverly hiding them iff. PIM is not supported. Is that hard as well?

#8 Updated by segfault 2018-10-09 21:05:49

• Assignee changed from segfault to sajolida

segfault wrote:
> intrigeri wrote:
> > Thank you for the quick turnaround :) But — sorry I was unclear! — actually I meant unconditionally hiding these widgets in our Stretch backports of the relevant packages, not cleverly hiding them iff. PIM is not supported. Is that hard as well?
>
> No, that’s not hard. I can do that for 3.10.

I created Bug #16031 to track this.

> I did that in doc/15927-pim-in-known-issues.

What’s the status of this? I see that it wasn’t merged yet. Are you waiting for a review?

#10 Updated by sajolida 2018-10-10 18:21:36

• Status changed from Confirmed to Resolved
• Assignee deleted (sajolida)
• QA Check deleted (Info Needed)

My branch doc/15927-pim-in-known-issues was copying the note that we already have in the VeraCrypt documentation to the known issues for 3.9. Now that 3.9.1, I think it doesn’t make much sense to add it there. So let’s close this ticket.