Hi, intrigeri wrote (13 May 2013 15:42:10 GMT) : > I've tried it, and it works fine for me (and makes "the boot device > has safe access rights" test pass), so I've merged our feature/bilibop > branch into the experimental one.
> I'd like to fix this bug for 0.18.1 or 0.19. > So, the question now is: do we want to use bilibop to fix this serious > bug, or develop and maintain a in-house solution? > A. bilibop > pros: > - already works in a way that I'd be happy to ship in our next > stable release > - we don't have tomaintain it: quidame does > - it supports more hardware / boot media / installation modes > than we'll ever do ourselves > cons: > - we (well, I) have to sponsor it in Debian > - quite a lot of code for something that may look simple > B. home-made solution > pros: > - less code > cons: > - the code is not finished (yet) > - we have to maintain it ourselves > - only supports the hardware / boot media / installation modes > that we explicitly add support for > I do prefer to go with plan A. > What do others think? Nobody disagreed, so this is now a formal review&merge request. Now is more than time to voice your opinion if you disagree with us going the bilibop way. feature/bilibop has been in experimental for two weeks. I've just updated the ticket (todo/make_system_disk_read-only) to make the next steps clearer. Candidate for 0.19, please merge into devel (at the APT level too). > quidame, would you be happy to commit to make bilibop-udev support the > Tails usecase on the long term? (that is, Debian stable + live-build + > live-boot, GPT, DVD or USB / sd-card, etc.) FTR, quidame commits to do so :) Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc _______________________________________________ tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
