Hi, intrigeri wrote (07 Jan 2014 22:23:05 GMT) : > intrigeri wrote (07 Jan 2014 22:18:28 GMT) : >>> It should be noted that I haven't yet verified that any of the below >>> solutions work. I've built some squeeze debs with the solution below and >>> will try it one of these days.
>> Cool. ETA? > Oops, I realized (too late) that this question of mine was > considerably off-topic, since we had previously agreed not to consider > this problem as a blocker for the first iteration. Sorry. > My question rather is: given the patch against Squeeze's and Wheezy's > NM is a one-liner, assuming it is trivial to test if it works, do we > want it in the first iteration of the MAC spoofing feature (that is, > in 0.23), or do we think it makes more sense to spend time documenting > the limitation of our solution? Both suit me very well. I'm not sure if we have decided something on this topic yet. anonym? 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 To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to [email protected].
