27/02/14 13:22, intrigeri wrote: > 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?
Well, I'm quite swamped at the moment, so I'd like to leave this until after the 0.23 release. That is unless someone else commits to it. Cheers! _______________________________________________ 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].
