Jun 22 2017
May 14 2016
May 11 2016
Yes its working :)
Apr 26 2016
Apr 25 2016
Apr 21 2016
Perhaps the echo and exit 1 in qubes-rpc scripts is not sane and should be removed? @marmarek
Mar 16 2016
@HulaHoop reported it works in KVM.
Jan 5 2016
Its a great leap towards upstreaming and overlaps with some work needed for a hypothetical Whonix-Host metapackage.
log build version
Jan 4 2016
converted chroot-script 40_add_torprojects_key to postinst script:
https://github.com/Whonix/anon-shared-build-apt-sources-tpo/commit/495fc4cf73392dc9b9fd7e780afb92eb16c32d80
Dec 28 2015
Dec 9 2015
Dec 4 2015
deprecated anon-shared-build-fix-grub - no longer required
Nov 29 2015
do not let systemd service enter failed state of host config has not been applied:
https://github.com/Whonix/shared-folder-help/commit/24143991888ab900effe4b11f7eb55172af6793d
Nov 26 2015
Nov 23 2015
less dependency on /var/run/qubes-service status files
usr/lib/qubes-whonix/replace-ips: no longer depend on /var/run/qubes-service/
Nov 22 2015
no longer depend on /var/run/qubes-service status files
no longer depend on /var/run/qubes-service/whonix-template
Right. Closed https://github.com/marmarek/qubes-core-agent-linux/pull/52; and opened https://github.com/marmarek/qubes-core-agent-linux/pull/53 for it.
Yes, and failed service would break dependencies.
Some flag file would be better. /var/run/qubes-service is meant to be controlled from Dom0 based on qvm-service settings, so not the best place. Maybe simply /var/run/qubes/this-is-template?
Is there in Qubes a common / recommended sytemd way using ConditionPathExists [or alike] way for detecting being run inside a TemplateVM?
I want to get rid of the many Whonix specific services by upstreaming (to Qubes or Whonix) everything that makes sense.
What is wrong with ExecStartPre=? If that's the only problem, maybe that code can be simply merged into that ExecStart= script?
Nov 20 2015
Does it work in KVM wrt to this ticket?
Nov 19 2015
Nov 16 2015
Nov 13 2015
What about leaving some README.txt in old location? Or indeed ignore the
problem.
I don't think so. But also I think it isn't needed anymore (since each
VM have proper routing set).
Better to have some confusion and asking where it's located now or if it's gone than any users who copied the symlink as backup.