Re: [Tails-dev] Fwd: headsup: new persistency in live-boot

Delete this message

Reply to this message
Author: intrigeri
Date:  
To: The Tails public development discussion list
Subject: Re: [Tails-dev] Fwd: headsup: new persistency in live-boot
hi,

anonym wrote (10 Apr 2012 10:28:28 GMT) :
> The 'linkfiles' option was also renamed to simply 'link', so you'll
> have to update tails-persistence-setup once more :S.


OK.

>> So, once you push the updated live-boot and
>> live-persist into devel, just merge feature/persistence into there and
>> everything should be alright.


> I've pushed an updated live-boot (live-persist doesn't need any
> changes) into feature/persistence, awaiting the above change.
> Tests of live-persist from the command-line was successful, so I'm
> confident this should work. In addition my build used live-config
> 3.0~a35-1 (currently in Debian unstable), and I think we should
> settle on that version as 3.0~a36-1 and up intriduce stuff that
> possibly causes some breakage.


Given >= 3.0~a36-1 will likely be uploaded to sid soon,
we should put the ~a35-1 binary package into our Git repository
so that it is given precedence.

> Surprisingly, we still use live-config-sysvinit 2.0.15-1. We really
> should've bumped it to the matching version of live-config, but
> since nothing seemed to fail during our extensive testing last
> month, I suppose we should stay to not risk introducing any
> breakage. I'm quite positive that version is completely incompatible
> with live-config >= 3.0~a36-1.


Only minor changes happened in live-config-sysvinit between 2.0.15-1
and 3.0~a35-1, so this should be OK. Starting with 3.0~a36-1, we
should really have matching live-config and live-config-sysvinit
versions. Did you take any step so that we think to do so post-0.11?

> Also, sorry for the delay of this (and hence the RC), but I wanted
> to make really sure that we don't get hit by any other string
> changes. Now it seems dba is completely settled on all strings we're
> affected by.


:)

> I couldn't find where, but you asked if we also should switch to the
> now default 'persistence' label instead of the current 'TailsData'.
> TBH I see no advantage of doing that (we gain nothing to have
> compatibility with generic Debian Live, right?) but I'm not against
> it as that label is pretty descriptive too. Please push that change
> into tails-persistence-setup at the same time as the linkfiles->link
> change if you so wish.


I'm convinced, let's forget about it.

Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc