Bug #10976: persistence.conf lost, recoverable by reconfiguring
Make writing persistence.conf.bak more robust
… as suggested on #16461#note-13:
- I've checked and indeed, it would make sense to
syncthat file after copying.
chattrpart is not needed as long as 1. t-p-s
sync's the file; 2. t-p-s is the only component that modifies that file (which is the case currently). But I guess it wouldn't hurt and who knows, something else might start modifying that file at some point. Let's do it.
Import tails-persistence-setup branch bugfix/16568-more-robust-backup (refs: #16568)
… at commit b111137caf01c84e15db39f82799e68a044b76f1.
Replace t-p-s patch with the bugfix-16568-more-robust-backup APT overlay (refs: #16568).
t-p-s 2.1.1-1 includes this patch and is in that overlay.
This reverts commit a9e9bbd12c88ae6158e72e9adb3e49a4723dee49.
- Status changed from In Progress to 11
- QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass
LGTM. I merged the t-p-s branch. I see you created a patch on bugfix/16568-more-robust-backup. I assume you want to use that until we release a new t-p-s version? If so I would merge the branch in to stable and skip releasing a new t-p-s version.
- Assignee changed from segfault to intrigeri
- QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Dev Needed
LGTM. I merged the t-p-s branch.
@segfault, thank you.
I see you created a patch on bugfix/16568-more-robust-backup. I assume you want to use that until we release a new t-p-s version? If so I would merge the branch in to stable and skip releasing a new t-p-s version.
I'd rather not ship 3.14 with this patch in tails.git: it makes it harder to analyze what code we shipped in which Tails version. So I'll release a new t-p-s, will upload to the topic branch's APT overlay, and drop the patch. Then I'll merge into stable. Shout if this does not make sense :)