Re: [Tails-dev] [Tails-testers] Request for JavaFX on Tails 3.0
intrigeri: > Hi Collin, > > Collin Sullivan: > I'll assume that the package Martus needs is either > libopenjfx-java or libopenjfx-jni. > >> When I tested this, it appeared that both were required for openjfx to >> run. Marking either for removal also marked openjfx for removal. > >>> OK, please let us know once you have the exact list of dependencies >>> missing in Tails. > >> I've managed to get Martus up and running after installing via Synaptic: > >> + openjfx >> + libopenjfx-java >> + libopenjfx-jni > >> And nothing else. > > Thanks. Since then, we've removed I2P so openjdk-8-* are not installed > by default anymore. So on current feature/stretch, installing these > 3 packages pulls quite some more dependencies: > >The following additional packages will be installed: > ca-certificates-java java-common libatk-wrapper-java > libatk-wrapper-java-jni libgif7 openjdk-8-jre > openjdk-8-jre-headless >Suggested packages: > default-jre icedtea-8-plugin libnss-mdns fonts-ipafont-gothic > fonts-ipafont-mincho >The following NEW packages will be installed: > ca-certificates-java java-common libatk-wrapper-java > libatk-wrapper-java-jni libgif7 libopenjfx-java > libopenjfx-jni openjdk-8-jre openjdk-8-jre-headless openjfx >0 upgraded, 10 newly installed, 0 to remove and 293 not upgraded. >Need to get 46.3 MB of archives. > > If you want to confirm that it's still enough to run Martus, please > redo this experiment with Tails 3.0~beta3 or newer :) > > As a rule of thumb, the download size of compressed .deb's (46.3 MB) > is generally pretty close to the impact on the ISO size if they were > installed by default (and same for automated upgrades, e.g. openjdk-7 > has seen no less than 9 security updates in Jessie over the last two > years, during which we've released 22 versions of Tails ⇒ roughly 40% > of our updates included openjdk-7 packages before we removed I2P). > >>> I suggest you look into this using a Tails experimental ISO based >>> on Debian Stretch: […] > >> Ah, thanks. I missed this and was testing with the vanilla Tails 3.0 >> beta 1, […] > > No, that's not necessary. Testing 3.0~betaN is good. > 2) I could look again, but the libraries we need (I think) were not available in the Tails default repositories, so we needed to add new ones. That's another step for the user. >>> >>> I expect this might have been fixed with Tails 2.x, or will be in >>> 3.x. But you may want to double-check :) > >> I did have to add the stretch tester repository to Synaptic, as I did >> not find any of those libraries in the included/default repos. > > What's the stretch tester repository? > Do you mean on Tails 2.x or 3.0~betaN? > >> Anyway, a bit of positive movement on the testing side, and it sounds >> like some of the Tails team will be at IFF next week. Happy to talk >> more about this stuff there! > > I'm told there was some discussion about this topic at IFF; and I seem > to remember someone reported about it somewhere else, which is great! > It would be nice if someone could sum it up here too, for those who > have been following the discussion on this mailing list only :) Yeap. I included this in my report from IFF (send on ta...@boum.org for the sake of simplicity, sorry). Here it is in again: Many people from Benetech were at IFF. They explained a bit the assumptions that were made when they started Martus in 2003 and it makes it even clearer to me that Tails is good match for them: - Martus should work for people facing device seizure & still allow gathering and sending of sensitive data. - Martus should work with low or no Internet connection. - Martus should work on older computers, maybe infected. I tried to make it clear to them that we are not interested in integrating Martus in Tails by default but that we would be very interested in helping them to make it easy for their users to use Martus in Tails. Now all the dependencies needed to run Martus are in Debian Stretch. I also recommended them to keep an eye on the Java version in Debian. ___ 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] [Tails-testers] Request for JavaFX on Tails 3.0
Hi Collin, Collin Sullivan: I'll assume that the package Martus needs is either libopenjfx-java or libopenjfx-jni. > When I tested this, it appeared that both were required for openjfx to > run. Marking either for removal also marked openjfx for removal. >> OK, please let us know once you have the exact list of dependencies >> missing in Tails. > I've managed to get Martus up and running after installing via Synaptic: > + openjfx > + libopenjfx-java > + libopenjfx-jni > And nothing else. Thanks. Since then, we've removed I2P so openjdk-8-* are not installed by default anymore. So on current feature/stretch, installing these 3 packages pulls quite some more dependencies: The following additional packages will be installed: ca-certificates-java java-common libatk-wrapper-java libatk-wrapper-java-jni libgif7 openjdk-8-jre openjdk-8-jre-headless Suggested packages: default-jre icedtea-8-plugin libnss-mdns fonts-ipafont-gothic fonts-ipafont-mincho The following NEW packages will be installed: ca-certificates-java java-common libatk-wrapper-java libatk-wrapper-java-jni libgif7 libopenjfx-java libopenjfx-jni openjdk-8-jre openjdk-8-jre-headless openjfx 0 upgraded, 10 newly installed, 0 to remove and 293 not upgraded. Need to get 46.3 MB of archives. If you want to confirm that it's still enough to run Martus, please redo this experiment with Tails 3.0~beta3 or newer :) As a rule of thumb, the download size of compressed .deb's (46.3 MB) is generally pretty close to the impact on the ISO size if they were installed by default (and same for automated upgrades, e.g. openjdk-7 has seen no less than 9 security updates in Jessie over the last two years, during which we've released 22 versions of Tails ⇒ roughly 40% of our updates included openjdk-7 packages before we removed I2P). >> I suggest you look into this using a Tails experimental ISO based >> on Debian Stretch: […] > Ah, thanks. I missed this and was testing with the vanilla Tails 3.0 > beta 1, […] No, that's not necessary. Testing 3.0~betaN is good. >>> 2) I could look again, but the libraries we need (I think) were >>> not available in the Tails default repositories, so we needed to >>> add new ones. That's another step for the user. >> >> I expect this might have been fixed with Tails 2.x, or will be in >> 3.x. But you may want to double-check :) > I did have to add the stretch tester repository to Synaptic, as I did > not find any of those libraries in the included/default repos. What's the stretch tester repository? Do you mean on Tails 2.x or 3.0~betaN? > Anyway, a bit of positive movement on the testing side, and it sounds > like some of the Tails team will be at IFF next week. Happy to talk > more about this stuff there! I'm told there was some discussion about this topic at IFF; and I seem to remember someone reported about it somewhere else, which is great! It would be nice if someone could sum it up here too, for those who have been following the discussion on this mailing list only :) 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] [Tails-testers] Request for JavaFX on Tails 3.0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello hello, >>> I'll assume that the package Martus needs is either >>> libopenjfx-java or libopenjfx-jni. When I tested this, it appeared that both were required for openjfx to run. Marking either for removal also marked openjfx for removal. > OK, please let us know once you have the exact list of dependencies > missing in Tails. I've managed to get Martus up and running after installing via Synaptic: + openjfx + libopenjfx-java + libopenjfx-jni And nothing else. > I suggest you look into this using a Tails experimental ISO based > on Debian Stretch: > > https://nightly.tails.boum.org/build_Tails_ISO_feature-stretch/lastSuc cessful/archive/build-artifacts/ Ah, > > thanks. I missed this and was testing with the vanilla Tails 3.0 beta 1, and was able to get Martus to run and do all of the important things (create records, connect and backup to the server, perform searches, etc.). Let me know if you think it worth testing with nightly, too. >> 2) I could look again, but the libraries we need (I think) were >> not available in the Tails default repositories, so we needed to >> add new ones. That's another step for the user. > > I expect this might have been fixed with Tails 2.x, or will be in > 3.x. But you may want to double-check :) I did have to add the stretch tester repository to Synaptic, as I did not find any of those libraries in the included/default repos. >> 3) The less our partners/users need to use root / su / sudo, the >> better. Both for security and ease of use. > > Absolutely, especially if command line is involved. This drawback > will be alleviated once there's a GUI to configure additional > software (I'm pretty sure it'll still require an administration > password for the initial setup, but at least there will be fewer > steps that require command line usage, and they will be required > by your custom stuff rather than by Tails limitations). Cool. I'm also imagining that, if Tails were to ship with Martus, Martus might be included as part of the Persistence setup itself -- at the step where the user chooses which applications to configure to save to persistence (keyrings, Pidgin contacts, printers, etc etc etc), they could also select Martus. One intangible of having Martus ship with Tails is that it sort of gets the Tails Seal of Approval. Tails is known to take its security and privacy seriously, and I've observed people making the assumption that, if something is included in Tails, it's as if the devs are recommending it, so they trust it a bit more. Coaching users on how to add non-Tails software to Tails is a bit risky (lest they add other, non-recommended applications), and removes a bit of that sheen, as it were. Anyway, a bit of positive movement on the testing side, and it sounds like some of the Tails team will be at IFF next week. Happy to talk more about this stuff there! Cheers, Collin - -- Collin Sullivan Human Rights Outreach Associate Benetech Human Rights Program Email: colli...@benetech.org GPG: 0x35F83A6678657D4D XMPP: collin.sulli...@riseup.net OTR: A0946621 68E641FA 4DFBF9F0 10B20AA9 88601348 11C7957D 5A99DAF7 1D0DD4BC EE243287 943AD67A Twitter: @MartusProject https://www.benetech.org - Technology Serving Humanity https://www.martus.org - Martus Human Rights Bulletin System -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJYub8pAAoJEN3b1xdSAv8hwZ0P/Rlbp+W/z09FFIU2PPyHVWU6 f1+u4Kg0x/M1YQQPM5hFrhKCQjC9zBzZpnngdba7x+x+EHXElPl6uEq4Epm8Ltu2 5EKytDy6J4MV4AuJcKnCx4Pfu/7jIKrrmO6N/bL+lJNA3Jl/eHGc6BI5cimAIMIl iLx3jvaP78CbKr7fN+vWfI6jeVpwxcv+NYvp+rJjv5sBk8OoufoMaZ9DM/7cvOCJ diWGoHISXNtoG9GWGzxVPG1/HTS0xI5K0Pjhsbxl7k2+y1d3YXXJ9LwWUFCcHrNb wndzmZycgbYiHNABaXvHJ+hoCEAkwqA4Y87ntcSxcUvMw14425Q9YX0VYucgGVY4 etPaSNs8qk/ZYbjNYPHbrlaw5jRUvbJ/Dxy7UbqjZJmmJHHwdJWKzPkuyjnfUDhh UxuiSjqbNQPAsqKfKXgWSe856fl8J3N6TywwqJAjmNdPXHtdbslWc/9msvi+sBer 3hD7eqee2jM1M9i8oAuWe4bDPWRy9YUddufiMYAu4oQYQXQsLESd9b4hJCMzwc1V wMxR/thTtkFmIqvyOM2oY5Sq+ge9M4k+rLyNJKaphvqc/5Mcx4NW0UP62TRS3u4/ 48yJr294Rdn4Ss8/zqqJbUzkSlELFla7h8tU7Cm/p9uy6wuwEVQPj62mszhMEdL1 lZir1k2WbY5DxIZagzEp =e8Pi -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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] [Tails-testers] Request for JavaFX on Tails 3.0
Hi, [moving this discussion to tails-dev@] Collin Sullivan: > On 1/7/17 1:32 AM, intrigeri wrote: >> I'll assume that the package Martus needs is either libopenjfx-java >> or libopenjfx-jni. > I'll need to confirm with some of the devs on my side. When we were > experimenting with custom Tails builds that included Martus (where we > did make some progress but ultimately didn't end up making a fully > workable build), we included openjfx, libopenjfx-java and > libopenjfx-jni. I don't know if all of them were necessary, and don't > remember how large the resulting ISO was -- will look into that. OK, please let us know once you have the exact list of dependencies missing in Tails. I suggest you look into this using a Tails experimental ISO based on Debian Stretch: https://nightly.tails.boum.org/build_Tails_ISO_feature-stretch/lastSuccessful/archive/build-artifacts/ > You can look at the project here and see the other packages we > included while testing: https://github.com/benetech/mtails/ Interesting. For those who want to follow along at home: that script "remasters" a released Tails ISO to add some packages and Martus itself. Collin, if you folks ever come back to that script: you'll need to ensure you set a custom TAILS_PRODUCT_NAME in /etc/os-release, otherwise users of that Tails derivative will be proposed to install automatic Tails updates, which will make their system behave in undefined ways. Also, note that the way that script downloads .deb's is not safer than the network link to the Debian mirror being used, i.e. generally plaintext HTTP; I would not do that. And finally, our documentation for derivatives might be interesting to you: https://tails.boum.org/contribute/derivatives/ >> This seems to be exactly the kind of use cases for which we've >> created the Additional Software Packages feature. So I'm curious: >> >> 1. Assuming we would ship the requested package by default: what's >> the Martus setup process? Feel free to point me to you current >> end-users documentation, I'll be happy to read it myself. [...] > In short, though, if you were to ship the requested packages by > default, I assume the setup process would be something like: > 1. Visit Martus.org, download the latest version of Martus for Linux > (.zip file) to your Persistent folder and unarchive. > 2. Either use a Terminal to cd into the Martus folder and run a > certain command (which specifies Martus use the system Tor, saves all > records in a Persistent subfolder, etc.); or run an executable text > file including the command. > This is off the top of my head but I believe that would be about it. > Right now there are many more steps, including installing a non-system > (and non-libre :P ) Java to the Persistent folder and pointing the > Martus jar to that, which causes a lot of pain for users. OK, so if we included Martus dependencies (or once we have a GUI for managing additional software), the setup would be simplified, but it would still not be straightforward. This is what I wanted to understand. Thanks! >> 2. What are the blockers for you folks to use the Additional >> Software Packages feature to ensure the requested package is >> installed in Tails? > Good questions. There are a couple of things: > 1) Our ultimate goal is to make the process of using Martus on Tails > as easy as possible for our users. They tend to be somewhat > intimidated by Tails as it is. Long lists of steps, including steps > about installing additional packages, give them lots of opportunity to > quit during setup, lots of ways things can go wrong, etc. We want to > minimize frustration as much as possible. Sure. > 2) I could look again, but the libraries we need (I think) were not > available in the Tails default repositories, so we needed to add new > ones. That's another step for the user. I expect this might have been fixed with Tails 2.x, or will be in 3.x. But you may want to double-check :) > 3) The less our partners/users need to use root / su / sudo, the > better. Both for security and ease of use. Absolutely, especially if command line is involved. This drawback will be alleviated once there's a GUI to configure additional software (I'm pretty sure it'll still require an administration password for the initial setup, but at least there will be fewer steps that require command line usage, and they will be required by your custom stuff rather than by Tails limitations). 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.
