Hi Collin,
Collin Sullivan:
>>>> I'll assume that the package Martus needs is either
>>>> libopenjfx-java or libopenjfx-jni.
> When I tested this, it appeared that both were required for openjfx to
> run. Marking either for removal also marked openjfx for removal.
>> OK, please let us know once you have the exact list of dependencies
>> missing in Tails.
> I've managed to get Martus up and running after installing via Synaptic:
> + openjfx
> + libopenjfx-java
> + libopenjfx-jni
> And nothing else.
Thanks. Since then, we've removed I2P so openjdk-8-* are not installed
by default anymore. So on current feature/stretch, installing these
3 packages pulls quite some more dependencies:
The following additional packages will be installed:
ca-certificates-java java-common libatk-wrapper-java libatk-wrapper-java-jni libgif7 openjdk-8-jre
openjdk-8-jre-headless
Suggested packages:
default-jre icedtea-8-plugin libnss-mdns fonts-ipafont-gothic fonts-ipafont-mincho
The following NEW packages will be installed:
ca-certificates-java java-common libatk-wrapper-java libatk-wrapper-java-jni libgif7 libopenjfx-java
libopenjfx-jni openjdk-8-jre openjdk-8-jre-headless openjfx
0 upgraded, 10 newly installed, 0 to remove and 293 not upgraded.
Need to get 46.3 MB of archives.
If you want to confirm that it's still enough to run Martus, please
redo this experiment with Tails 3.0~beta3 or newer :)
As a rule of thumb, the download size of compressed .deb's (46.3 MB)
is generally pretty close to the impact on the ISO size if they were
installed by default (and same for automated upgrades, e.g. openjdk-7
has seen no less than 9 security updates in Jessie over the last two
years, during which we've released 22 versions of Tails ⇒ roughly 40%
of our updates included openjdk-7 packages before we removed I2P).
>> I suggest you look into this using a Tails experimental ISO based
>> on Debian Stretch: […]
> Ah, thanks. I missed this and was testing with the vanilla Tails 3.0
> beta 1, […]
No, that's not necessary. Testing 3.0~betaN is good.
>>> 2) I could look again, but the libraries we need (I think) were
>>> not available in the Tails default repositories, so we needed to
>>> add new ones. That's another step for the user.
>>
>> I expect this might have been fixed with Tails 2.x, or will be in
>> 3.x. But you may want to double-check :)
> I did have to add the stretch tester repository to Synaptic, as I did
> not find any of those libraries in the included/default repos.
What's the stretch tester repository?
Do you mean on Tails 2.x or 3.0~betaN?
> Anyway, a bit of positive movement on the testing side, and it sounds
> like some of the Tails team will be at IFF next week. Happy to talk
> more about this stuff there!
I'm told there was some discussion about this topic at IFF; and I seem
to remember someone reported about it somewhere else, which is great!
It would be nice if someone could sum it up here too, for those who
have been following the discussion on this mailing list only :)
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
