Re: [Tails-dev] Suggestion for added package: paperkey
Hi, Daniel Kraft wrote (17 Dec 2014 19:29:03 GMT) : I would like to suggest adding paperkey (as in the Debian package repository) to Tails. This is a tool to export the raw secret part of a GPG key, for instance, to back it up on a paper print-out. First of all, thanks for the suggestion! Given this tool seems to be CLI-only, and meant to be rarely used, at first glance it doesn't seem appropriate to be installed by default, and instead advanced users can install it themselves whenever they need it. OTOH: * the manage an offline OpenPGP key with Tails use case would be improved if one could use this tool out-of-the-box, without needing to connect to the Internet and have APT download and install it; * the installed package takes a few dozens kB. Now, this would fit into the use case we've been asked by the cleanroom (Cc'd) folks to include apt-offline for. BTW, it's been waiting for their feedback since 4 months: https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/7208 Hans-Christoph: it would be super useful if you told us what's the list of additional packages cleanroom needs, that are not provided in Tails yet. Then, we can decide whether we want to install all of them by default, or rely on apt-offline instead. Then, I suspect we'll want to do just the same for paperkey. Cheers, -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Suggestion for added package: paperkey
I haven't touched it in a while since I got stuck while using Tails/squeeze for the uses we need it for. I have submitted a proposal for a project that includes a little work on cleanroom, so I do hope to get back to it in a focused way in the not-too-distant future. For the core use of creating a master GnuPG key and generating subkeys, I think that TAILS already has everything there. opensc is included, right? opensc will probably need to be backported to wheezy then included since they've recently made big strides in making it work a lot easier. For all of the uses that we have for cleanroom, I'm guessing there will be far too many packages to include. For example, we want to do Android signing key management, so that means Java keyrings, so that means default-jdk. But I'll keep this question in mind when I get back into it. .hc intrigeri: Hi, Daniel Kraft wrote (17 Dec 2014 19:29:03 GMT) : I would like to suggest adding paperkey (as in the Debian package repository) to Tails. This is a tool to export the raw secret part of a GPG key, for instance, to back it up on a paper print-out. First of all, thanks for the suggestion! Given this tool seems to be CLI-only, and meant to be rarely used, at first glance it doesn't seem appropriate to be installed by default, and instead advanced users can install it themselves whenever they need it. OTOH: * the manage an offline OpenPGP key with Tails use case would be improved if one could use this tool out-of-the-box, without needing to connect to the Internet and have APT download and install it; * the installed package takes a few dozens kB. Now, this would fit into the use case we've been asked by the cleanroom (Cc'd) folks to include apt-offline for. BTW, it's been waiting for their feedback since 4 months: https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/7208 Hans-Christoph: it would be super useful if you told us what's the list of additional packages cleanroom needs, that are not provided in Tails yet. Then, we can decide whether we want to install all of them by default, or rely on apt-offline instead. Then, I suspect we'll want to do just the same for paperkey. Cheers, -- PGP fingerprint: 5E61 C878 0F86 295C E17D 8677 9F0F E587 374B BE81 https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=vindexsearch=0x9F0FE587374BBE81 ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Meeting: our Tails/Jessie progress and plans
hi, intrigeri wrote (17 Dec 2014 17:07:26 GMT) : I say let's do that, cover what we can, and if it doesn't fit or if we need Alan and he's not here, then we can still schedule another meeting. Let's keep this thing rolling! It has happened. anonym and I went through the list of non-doc open tickets, and set priority + assignee: * low prio = no blocker for the initial Tails/Jessie release * elevated prio = regression, or similar * high prio = blocks other important work * normal prio = anything else I propose we have another meeting in a month, shortly after the next release, e.g. on January 16. As I see it, the main goal, this time, would be to see how we're doing wrt. getting the fixes we need into Jessie, and re-prioritize anything that is lagging behind on that front. anonym, Alan, others? (e.g. U., kytv, bertagaz and nodens could all be very helpful on the Debian side of things :) Cheers! ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
[Tails-dev] reducing the amount of data on our mirrors
Hey, The administrator of one of our mirrors ran out of disk space. That made me realize that as of now, the size of those mirrors is ever growing as we are keeping all past IUK: https://archive.torproject.org/amnesia.boum.org/tails/stable/iuk/ I might have been insisting in the past on keeping more than one IUK available, but what about trying to limit them to the most relevant ones? I would remove: - The ones that dates from before a release that forced a manual upgrade. This was the case of least for Tails 1.1 (Wheezy), Tails 1.2.2 or 1.2.3, Tails 4.0 (Jessie). - The ones from RC before the latest major version. I find it reasonable to assume that people playing with RC would update it at least in the 12 weeks following that release. So out of 9 current IUK on our mirrors: [ ] Tails_i386_0.23_to_1.0.iuk 27-Apr-2014 22:25 150M [ ] Tails_i386_1.0_to_1.0.1.iuk 08-Jun-2014 20:47 194M [ ] Tails_i386_1.0~rc1_to_1.0.iuk 27-Apr-2014 22:26 136M [ ] Tails_i386_1.1.1_to_1.1.2.iuk 24-Sep-2014 22:27 186M [ ] Tails_i386_1.1.2_to_1.2.iuk 15-Oct-2014 23:36 191M [ ] Tails_i386_1.1_to_1.1.1.iuk 01-Sep-2014 01:22 255M [ ] Tails_i386_1.1~rc1_to_1.1.iuk 22-Jul-2014 18:11 235M [ ] Tails_i386_1.2_to_1.2.1.iuk 03-Dec-2014 14:04 232M [ ] Tails_i386_1.2~rc1_to_1.2.iuk 15-Oct-2014 23:36 164M We would be left with only 5: [ ] Tails_i386_1.1.1_to_1.1.2.iuk 24-Sep-2014 22:27 186M [ ] Tails_i386_1.1.2_to_1.2.iuk 15-Oct-2014 23:36 191M [ ] Tails_i386_1.1_to_1.1.1.iuk 01-Sep-2014 01:22 255M [ ] Tails_i386_1.2_to_1.2.1.iuk 03-Dec-2014 14:04 232M [ ] Tails_i386_1.2~rc1_to_1.2.iuk 15-Oct-2014 23:36 164M Other more simple algorithms could be to: - Keep them for at most six months. - Always keep at most 1GB of IUK (without counting RCs) because starting from 1GB of IUK it's lighter to do a manual upgrade. What do you think? -- sajolida ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Meeting: our Tails/Jessie progress and plans
hi, intrigeri: I propose we have another meeting in a month, shortly after the next release, e.g. on January 16. As I see it, the main goal, this time, would be to see how we're doing wrt. getting the fixes we need into Jessie, and re-prioritize anything that is lagging behind on that front. anonym, Alan, others? (e.g. U., kytv, bertagaz and nodens could all be very helpful on the Debian side of things :) ok, then let's have a meeting on th 16th indeed to see what needs to be done. Cheers! ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Meeting: our Tails/Jessie progress and plans
Le 18 décembre 2014 17:39:00 CET, u u...@451f.org a écrit : hi, intrigeri: I propose we have another meeting in a month, shortly after the next release, e.g. on January 16. As I see it, the main goal, this time, would be to see how we're doing wrt. getting the fixes we need into Jessie, and re-prioritize anything that is lagging behind on that front. anonym, Alan, others? (e.g. U., kytv, bertagaz and nodens could all be very helpful on the Debian side of things :) ok, then let's have a meeting on th 16th indeed to see what needs to be done. Works for me, unless I already have a work meeting at the same time. Cheers, -- nodens ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] reducing the amount of data on our mirrors
Hi, full ack on the idea. sajolida wrote (18 Dec 2014 14:48:08 GMT) : Other more simple algorithms could be to: - Keep them for at most six months. - Always keep at most 1GB of IUK (without counting RCs) because starting from 1GB of IUK it's lighter to do a manual upgrade. Let's try running the easiest to implement of those manually (the first one looks trivial) as part of the release process, and apply the suggested changes manually too, for a few releases. If it seems to be fine, we make it live? Cheers -- intrigeri ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
