Author: intrigeri Date: To: The Tails public development discussion list Subject: Re: [Tails-dev] I2P & Tails 1.2 (0.9.15, browser, network-manager)
Hi
first, thanks a lot for the status update!
Kill Your TV wrote (17 Sep 2014 19:24:56 GMT) : > 0.9.15
> ====== > The last day for checkins for I2P 0.9.15 is tomorrow, which means a new
> release is around the corner. Once the 0.9.15 packages are available
> I'll make a request to have these updated packages pulled into the Tails
> debian repo.
Woohoo :)
> I2P-browser
> =========== > I got a bit of work done for the separate browser for use with I2P,
> based upon the unsafe-browser script. I haven't pushed it anywhere yet,
> but will do once I do a bit more testing with it. (ticket #7725)
Great! Note that this code probably depends on what browser we happen
to ship in Tails 1.2. There are chances that we ship something based
on the TBB tarball, so some paths etc. will likely need to be adapted.
Sorry that most of the discussion about that happened privately behind
anonym and I, so you couldn't know.
Once anonym pushed his initial branch that pulls the TBB in (scheduled
for today), and you push your own, then we can have a clearer idea of
if/how they conflict, and what's the best path to resolution.
Note that anonym's work includes adjusting the unsafe-browser code, so
given yours is based on it, adjusting your code shouldn't be
too painful.
> Network-Manager
> =============== > Beginning with Tails 1.1.1, users need to explicitly ask for I2P at the
> boot prompt. Users still need to start I2P from the menu. Since a user
> that enters "i2p" as a boot option is clearly interested in running I2P,
> it was suggested that I2P be started, e.g., via a nm hook. This will
> also be pushed after I'm able to do a bit more testing. (ticket #7732)
I'm starting to be concerned that we're relying too much on NM hooks,
but for the time being it'll have to do. Once we migrate our stuff to
systemd, we can refactor all these NM hooks to make the whole thing
clearer and more robust.
