Feature #9830

Import I2P 0.9.22 packages

Added by kytv 2015-07-31 06:51:29 . Updated 2015-09-22 15:06:23 .

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Target version:
Tails_1.6
Start date:
2015-07-31
Due date:
% Done:

100%

Feature Branch:
feature/i2p-0.9.22
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:

Starter:
Affected tool:
I2P
Deliverable for:

Description

Release is forthcoming.

Subtasks

Related issues

Blocks Tails - Feature #7724: Sandbox I2P Confirmed 2015-11-17

History

#1 Updated by intrigeri 2015-08-02 06:58:10

> * Target version: Tails_1.5

The date for our freeze was (theoretically) July 31, and lots of stuff is still not merged (and some critical stuff hasn’t been submitted for review yet), so IMO it’s a bit too late to add this to our plate for 1.5. I’ll let the RM decide, though.

#2 Updated by kytv 2015-08-02 07:48:16

  • Assignee set to anonym
  • QA Check set to Ready for QA
  • Type of work changed from Wait to Code

intrigeri wrote:
> > * Target version: Tails_1.5
>
> The date for our freeze was (theoretically) July 31, and lots of stuff is still not merged (and some critical stuff hasn’t been submitted for review yet), so IMO it’s a bit too late to add this to our plate for 1.5. I’ll let the RM decide, though.

Understood. If we can do it, cool.

#3 Updated by kytv 2015-08-02 07:49:42

#4 Updated by intrigeri 2015-08-03 07:41:05

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
  • Target version changed from Tails_1.5 to Tails_1.6
  • % Done changed from 0 to 50

Apparently I’m the RM => it’s too late for 1.5. Maybe you want to add something in the feature branch field, btw.

#5 Updated by kytv 2015-08-31 07:01:42

  • Subject changed from Import I2P 0.9.21 packages to Import I2P 0.9.21 (or 0.9.22 if ready in time) packages

#6 Updated by anonym 2015-08-31 11:37:57

  • Assignee changed from anonym to kytv
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Info Needed

So, should I wait a bit more for 0.9.22, or potentially “waste” time reviewing 0.9.21? What’s your gut feeling, kytv?

#7 Updated by kytv 2015-08-31 12:42:30

anonym wrote:
> So, should I wait a bit more for 0.9.22, or potentially “waste” time reviewing 0.9.21? What’s your gut feeling, kytv?

Would before the 14-SEPT be early enough? (Our freeze is currently 11-SEPT)

#8 Updated by anonym 2015-09-02 09:52:28

kytv wrote:
> anonym wrote:
> > So, should I wait a bit more for 0.9.22, or potentially “waste” time reviewing 0.9.21? What’s your gut feeling, kytv?
>
> Would before the 14-SEPT be early enough? (Our freeze is currently 11-SEPT)

The freeze is 21st of September, although I have reasons for wanting everything done preferably by 20th of September. A few days earlier than that would be preferable, but if you’ll do the testing inside Tails I’ll be less concerned. :)

So, what do you think?

#9 Updated by anonym 2015-09-02 09:53:12

(Meta: Also, when you have answered an “Info Needed” question, please reassign the ticket back to the person who asked the question! Thanks! :))

#10 Updated by kytv 2015-09-15 14:06:39

  • Assignee changed from kytv to anonym
  • QA Check changed from Info Needed to Ready for QA
  • Feature Branch set to kytv:feature/i2p-0.9.22

Please pull the 0.9.22 package into the Tails Debian repository for inclusion into Tails 1.6.

#11 Updated by anonym 2015-09-16 12:16:44

  • Assignee changed from anonym to kytv
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Info Needed

kytv wrote:
> Please pull the 0.9.22 package into the Tails Debian repository for inclusion into Tails 1.6.

Should I take it that you have tested these packages in Tails?

#12 Updated by kytv 2015-09-16 13:27:53

  • Assignee changed from kytv to anonym
  • QA Check changed from Info Needed to Ready for QA

anonym wrote:
> kytv wrote:
> > Please pull the 0.9.22 package into the Tails Debian repository for inclusion into Tails 1.6.
>
> Should I take it that you have tested these packages in Tails?

Oh yes, I have given these a lot of testing.

#13 Updated by kytv 2015-09-16 13:36:17

  • Subject changed from Import I2P 0.9.21 (or 0.9.22 if ready in time) packages to Import I2P 0.9.22 packages

#14 Updated by anonym 2015-09-16 15:21:21

Applied in changeset commit:a7b852d76aa4fbd3873f5e2f262c904e17c54c04.

#15 Updated by anonym 2015-09-16 15:24:33

  • Assignee changed from anonym to kytv
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Info Needed

kytv wrote:
> anonym wrote:
> > kytv wrote:
> > > Please pull the 0.9.22 package into the Tails Debian repository for inclusion into Tails 1.6.
> >
> > Should I take it that you have tested these packages in Tails?
>
> Oh yes, I have given these a lot of testing.

Excellent! I’ve imported the packages. I’ll just make sure that the automated tests pass, then I’ll merge. Well, I have one question first, I guess: will it fix Feature #7724 too? Are all the concerns raised there taken care of (e.g. has the AppArmor profile been reviewed?)?

#16 Updated by anonym 2015-09-16 16:41:48

anonym wrote:
> Excellent! I’ve imported the packages. I’ll just make sure that the automated tests pass, then I’ll merge.

This went well, as did some rudimentary manual testing, so…

> Well, I have one question first, I guess: will it fix Feature #7724 too? Are all the concerns raised there taken care of (e.g. has the AppArmor profile been reviewed?)?

… only this remains, I guess.

#17 Updated by anonym 2015-09-17 04:12:22

  • Status changed from In Progress to Fix committed
  • % Done changed from 50 to 100

Applied in changeset commit:2d81e7d9c33be3116c79756360ab08adb1ab4b16.

#18 Updated by anonym 2015-09-17 04:24:59

  • Assignee deleted (kytv)
  • QA Check changed from Info Needed to Pass
  • Feature Branch changed from kytv:feature/i2p-0.9.22 to feature/i2p-0.9.22

anonym wrote:
> anonym wrote:
> > Excellent! I’ve imported the packages. I’ll just make sure that the automated tests pass, then I’ll merge.

Merged!

> > Well, I have one question first, I guess: will it fix Feature #7724 too? Are all the concerns raised there taken care of (e.g. has the AppArmor profile been reviewed?)?
>
> … only this remains, I guess.

Clarification from IRC:

KillYourTV: KillYourCPU: no, <del><a class='issue tracker-2 status-3 priority-4 priority-default closed child' href='/code/issues/9830' title='Import I2P 0.9.22 packages'>Feature #9830</a></del> doesn't resolve <a class='issue tracker-2 status-9 priority-3 priority-default child' href='/code/issues/7724' title='Sandbox I2P'>Feature #7724</a>, but the feature branch does turn on the already existing apparmor profiles which are in the i2p packages.


so leaving Feature #7724 as-is.

#19 Updated by bertagaz 2015-09-22 15:06:23

  • Status changed from Fix committed to Resolved
  • QA Check deleted (Pass)