Project

General

Profile

Bug #15778

Make the Tails Installer upstream tarball DFSG-free

Added by intrigeri about 1 year ago. Updated 16 days ago.

Status:
Confirmed
Priority:
Low
Assignee:
Category:
Installation
Target version:
-
Start date:
08/09/2018
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Feature Branch:
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:
Starter:
Affected tool:
Installer

Description

Our release process for Tails Installer is complicated by the fact we repack the upstream tarball to remove the tools/ directory and in turn make it DFSG-free. I think the only reason why we've historically chosen to keep the Windows binaries in tools/* was: we might need them if we port the Installer to Windows (#8550). But we have no such plan anymore, our plan is #15292 which does not require to do that. So we could now delete the tools/ directory from our master Git branch and simplify the release process doc.


Related issues

Related to Tails - Feature #7036: Move custom software to main git repo Confirmed

History

#1 Updated by intrigeri about 1 year ago

  • Description updated (diff)

#2 Updated by intrigeri about 1 year ago

  • Assignee changed from intrigeri to nodens

#3 Updated by u about 1 year ago

#4 Updated by intrigeri about 1 year ago

(Even with #15292 we'll keep Tails Installer in Tails, so simplifying its maintenance is still worth it.)

#5 Updated by intrigeri about 1 year ago

#6 Updated by sajolida 29 days ago

Now that Tails Installer only lives in Tails, does it still make sense to talk about an "upstream tarball"?

#7 Updated by u 28 days ago

sajolida wrote:

Now that Tails Installer only lives in Tails, does it still make sense to talk about an "upstream tarball"?

Yes, it does. "Upstream" is the part of a (Debian) package that is the actual software. And the upstream authors regularly release an upstream tarball that is used to create the Debian package. The fact that in this case, upstream and packagers are the same people, does not matter in the naming.

#8 Updated by intrigeri 16 days ago

  • Related to Feature #7036: Move custom software to main git repo added

#9 Updated by intrigeri 16 days ago

Hi!

u wrote:

sajolida wrote:

Now that Tails Installer only lives in Tails, does it still make sense to talk about an "upstream tarball"?

Yes, it does. "Upstream" is the part of a (Debian) package that is the actual software. And the upstream authors regularly release an upstream tarball that is used to create the Debian package. The fact that in this case, upstream and packagers are the same people, does not matter in the naming.

You're (correctly) describing the current state of things. OTOH I understand that sajolida was essentially questioning whether that very current state of things still makes sense.

I would go further and rephrase the question this way:

  • What's the value of maintaining a Tails Installer Debian package nowadays? (As opposed to installing it in the Tails image with something like python3 setup.py install, like we already do for our Python library)
    • Personally, I see very little such value and it's clear to me that the overhead cost greatly outweighs it (it's a PITA to work on these things).
  • If we stop maintaining a Tails Installer Debian package: what's the value of maintaining Tails Installer in its own Git repo? (I'm asking because the FT is in the process of merging some other repos, such as Tails Greeter, into tails.git, to make our work more pleasant+efficient and to make it easier to onboard new contributors: #7036. If there's a particular reason why Tails Installer should not be subject to this treatment, please comment there :)

Also available in: Atom PDF