Project

General

Profile

Feature #13463

No PPPoE in Tails

Added by hostile0101 3 months ago. Updated 20 days ago.

Status:
Resolved
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Category:
-
Target version:
Start date:
07/12/2017
Due date:
% Done:

100%

QA Check:
Pass
Feature Branch:
:geb/tails/feature/13463-pppoe-support
Type of work:
Code
Blueprint:
Easy:
Affected tool:

Description

Russia and other post-USSR countries use PPPoE. My entire city with 300 000+ people has providers that all use PPPoE.

Tails do not support PPPoE now. And for a long time. Old versions was good with it (2015)/

To make PPPoE work, we need to add "pppoe" package.

So to input PPPoE login and password users need to type "nm-connection-editor" in terminal. After that appears GUI menu with connection options. We need "DSL"
But PPPoE will still not work. Then users need to install only one package - "pppoe".
After that, all works.

Please, include "pppoe" package in August edition of Tails. We need it.


Related issues

Related to Tails - Bug #11267: Add nm-connection-editor to the network setup instructions Confirmed 07/12/2017

Associated revisions

Revision bdd63a95
Added by anonym about 1 month ago

Merge branch 'geb/feature/13463-pppoe-support' into devel

Fix-committed: #13463

History

#1 Updated by hostile0101 3 months ago

So all users from post-USSR countries cannot connect to internet directly from cable.

#2 Updated by mercedes508 3 months ago

  • Category deleted (Installation)
  • Assignee changed from geb to hostile0101
  • Priority changed from High to Normal
  • Parent task set to #11267
  • Type of work changed from Debian to Discuss

Sorry but I kind of doubt if affects all users from such a wide region of the world.

So you say that just adding the pppoe package does the trick?

#3 Updated by geb 3 months ago

Hi,

Thanks mercedes508 for the triage. I told hostile0101 to submit this bug and put me as assignee (he already sent a mail in tails-dev https://mailman.boum.org/pipermail/tails-dev/2017-July/011552.html and we also discussed it on xmpp:)

I gave a quick look:

Do you think inclusion can be considered ? If so I would be pleased to handle it.

#4 Updated by intrigeri 3 months ago

  • Parent task deleted (#11267)

#11267 is about documenting a superset of what this ticket is about, to make it easier to setup. #13463 is about making it possible at all to use PPPoE, so it can't be a subtask.

#5 Updated by intrigeri 3 months ago

  • Related to Bug #11267: Add nm-connection-editor to the network setup instructions added

#6 Updated by intrigeri 3 months ago

mercedes508 wrote:

Sorry but I kind of doubt if affects all users from such a wide region of the world.

The initial report might be exagerating, but we've been told similar things before, so let's take this use case seriously :)

#7 Updated by intrigeri 3 months ago

  • Status changed from New to Confirmed
  • Assignee changed from hostile0101 to geb
  • Type of work changed from Discuss to Code

Do you think inclusion can be considered ? If so I would be pleased to handle it.

Yes, please go ahead.

#8 Updated by mercedes508 3 months ago

intrigeri wrote:

mercedes508 wrote:

Sorry but I kind of doubt if affects all users from such a wide region of the world.

The initial report might be exagerating, but we've been told similar things before, so let's take this use case seriously :)

I didn't reject it, just mitigating the affected user set.

#9 Updated by geb 3 months ago

  • Status changed from Confirmed to In Progress
  • QA Check set to Dev Needed
  • Feature Branch set to :geb/tails/feature/13463-pppoe-support

Hi,

Proposed change should be commited in git.tails.boum.org:geb/tails/feature/13463-pppoe-support.

Could somebody verify it ? If thats fine can it be merged for 3.1 ?

Thanks :)

#10 Updated by intrigeri 3 months ago

See "How to submit your changes" on https://tails.boum.org/contribute/merge_policy/.

And since it's your first code contribution (I think), just to be clear I'd like to ask: what kind of tests did you perform? Building an ISO, starting it, diff'ing the resulting packages list against 3.0.1's, anything else? (I gather you can't test the PPPoE functionality yourself, so well.)

#11 Updated by geb 3 months ago

Hi,

I did not test it, thats why I did not dare changing the fields like if it is ready.

As I did not have a Tails build environnement ready (and won't be able to have one before weeks), I wanted to test it with nighlybuild:
- verify that the package files are present https://packages.debian.org/stretch/all/pppoeconf/filelist
- compare the installed packages list, more probably compared with an another nighly build of the devel branch (even if it is unlikely pppoe will install any other dependency https://packages.debian.org/stretch/pppoe)
- hostile0101 also proposed a couple of time to test if it is working for him once a test iso is ready
Do you think it will be good ?

However, almost 24 hours after I pushed my branch in git.immerda.ch/geb/tails, I sill don't find the ISO in https://nightly.tails.boum.org/. Should the branch being imported in git.immerda.ch/tails for the nightlybuild to occur ? If so would it be possible to ask for it ?

Do you have any other suggestion / recommendation ?

Thanks a lot in advance, and sorry for the inconvenience

#12 Updated by intrigeri 3 months ago

I did not test it, thats why I did not dare changing the fields like if it is ready.

OK, thanks for clarifying :)

As I did not have a Tails build environnement ready (and won't be able to have one before weeks), I wanted to test it with nighlybuild:
- verify that the package files are present https://packages.debian.org/stretch/all/pppoeconf/filelist
- compare the installed packages list, more probably compared with an another nighly
build of the devel branch (even if it is unlikely pppoe will install any other
dependency https://packages.debian.org/stretch/pppoe)
- hostile0101 also proposed a couple of time to test if it is working for him once a test iso is ready
Do you think it will be good ?

This sounds great!

However, almost 24 hours after I pushed my branch in git.immerda.ch/geb/tails, I sill don't find the ISO in https://nightly.tails.boum.org/.

That's expected: we don't provide arbitrary code execution on our CI infrastructure to anyone who happens to have a Tails Git repo hosted at immerda.

Should the branch being imported in git.immerda.ch/tails for the nightlybuild to occur ?

Yes.

If so would it be possible to ask for it ?

I wanted to push your branch there but apparently someone did that already. I've just triggered a build manually to speed things up a bit, so an ISO should land on nightly.t.b.o in ~1 hour :)

#13 Updated by bertagaz 3 months ago

intrigeri wrote:

I wanted to push your branch there but apparently someone did that already. I've just triggered a build manually to speed things up a bit, so an ISO should land on nightly.t.b.o in ~1 hour :)

I just did push that branch and was replying. :)

#14 Updated by intrigeri 2 months ago

What's the status here?

#15 Updated by geb 2 months ago

  • Assignee deleted (geb)
  • Target version set to Tails_3.2
  • % Done changed from 0 to 90
  • QA Check changed from Dev Needed to Ready for QA

I tested https://nightly.tails.boum.org/build_Tails_ISO_feature-13463-pppoe-support/builds/2017-08-14_22-48-56/archive/latest.iso against https://nightly.tails.boum.org/build_Tails_ISO_devel/builds/2017-08-15_06-56-01/archive/latest.iso :
- the files listed in https://packages.debian.org/stretch/all/pppoe/filelist are present in the iso with pppoe support added (and not in the devel version)
- dpkg -l don't see any other difference in the package list than the addition of the pppoe package

I was not able to confirm pppoe is working but hostile0101 confirmed it on jabber. Hostile0101, it would be great if you could confirm it here.

Do you think it would be fine for the inclusion for 3.2 ?

Thanks :-)

#16 Updated by bertagaz 2 months ago

  • Assignee set to hostile0101
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Info Needed

geb wrote:

I was not able to confirm pppoe is working but hostile0101 confirmed it on jabber. Hostile0101, it would be great if you could confirm it here.

Assigning to hostfile0101 then so that s/he gets noticed.

#17 Updated by intrigeri 2 months ago

  • Assignee changed from hostile0101 to anonym
  • QA Check changed from Info Needed to Ready for QA

I don't get why a testing report posted here would be any better than the one we've got already. I'm happy to stand corrected if there's a good reason to request what looks like duplicate info to me. Meanwhile, this looks very much Ready for QA to me.

#18 Updated by anonym about 1 month ago

  • Status changed from In Progress to Fix committed
  • Assignee deleted (anonym)
  • % Done changed from 90 to 100
  • QA Check changed from Ready for QA to Pass

Couldn't test but I trust the report geb received!

#19 Updated by geb about 1 month ago

Intrigeri:

I don't get why a testing report posted here would be any better than the one we've got already [...]

Anonym:

Couldn't test but I trust the report geb received!

Great, Thanks. I was just thinking it would be valuable to have the test report here, instead of an (already lost?) xmmp chat session, but I am glad you don't consider it as a blocker :).

Thanks,

#20 Updated by anonym 20 days ago

  • Status changed from Fix committed to Resolved

Also available in: Atom PDF