Thank you sir! I agree, any thing we push upstream to you as a deliverable
will be in the form of a package. I'd like to see a winon and a winon-tails
package, one that contains the necessary tweaks to get the VMs using the
same host disk and any other generic tweaks necessary. And then a second
package that contains the mask directory intended for tails. Ideally the
winon package could also be used in our research project, benefiting both
worlds :). Of course, all of these should be platform independent, as I'll
make use of bash as much as possible, Python, and then if necessary C.
If it builds so conveniently, I'll just throw use this process to build one
for my test environment, and once I make my first deliverable to you folks,
let's revisit this. Ideally winon would be delivered as a tails branch and
I'd host a the appropriate deb packages on my own resources until you folks
absorb them. We can of course maintain a dev apt repo.
Cheers,
David
On Tue, Dec 24, 2013 at 5:43 AM, intrigeri <intrigeri@???> wrote:
> David Wolinsky wrote (23 Dec 2013 20:13:28 GMT) :
> > What is the ideal build environment for building binaries that will be
> run
> > in Tails? Would a squeeze chroot in addition to the tails apt sources be
> > sufficient.
>
> Thank you for asking. A Squeeze chroot would be enough for quick
> experiments. For basically anything else, we want a proper Debian
> package, that must be part of Debian unless it is not relevant
> for Debian.
>
> > I'm working on a project to extend Tails to use virtualization similar to
> > whonix
>
> :)
>
> > and need to build a tool called redsocks written using C.
> > https://github.com/darkk/redsocks .. it is in the latest Debian but not
> in
> > squeeze.
>
> Then, what we need is a backport for Squeeze. I've just tried to build
> one based on Wheezy's 0.4+dfsg-1, and it was trivial (for a Debian
> developer); I just had to make the build-dependency on libevent >= 2.0
> explicit, as the build fails when built against Squeeze's libevent
> 1.4. Good news is that I've uploaded a libevent 2.0 backport for
> Squeeze a while ago :)
>
> From this point,
>
> 1. either we think it would benefit Debian users to be able to use
> this backport => I'll upload the package to the official
> squeeze-backports archive;
>
> 2. or we don't => we'll to carry the backport in our own APT
> repository => I'll create a dedicated suite and push the package
> there, once you tell me the name of the feature/* branch you need
> this in.
>
> Given Squeeze is nearly EOL and redsocks as a pretty low popcon [1],
> I tend to prefer #2. What do you think?
>
> [1] http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=redsocks
>
> Cheers,
> --
> intrigeri
> | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
> | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
> _______________________________________________
> tails-dev mailing list
> tails-dev@???
> https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
>
