update Tor Browser proposal 102 to account for Tails team feedback

We need to update proposal 102 "Integration of Tor Launcher into Tor Browser Core" to account for feedback we received from the Tails team (intrigeri). See the discussion here: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tbb-dev/2019-February/000962.html https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tbb-dev/2019-February/000963.html https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tbb-dev/2019-February/000964.html

Trac:
Parent Ticket: #31283 (closed)

added AffectsTails component::applications/tor launcher owner::brade parent::31283 priority::medium severity::normal status::needs-information type::defect ux-team labels

Trac:
Cc: N/A to intrigeri
Keywords: N/A deleted, AffectsTails added

Trac:
Cc: intrigeri to intrigeri, anonym

Good news! I have managed to get Tor Launcher from Tor Browser 9.0a1 running successfully in Tails. I just extracted it from browser/omni.ja, changed the directory layout to what is required and adjusted the paths in chrome.manifest accordingly.

Previously I discussed with geko about adding a pref for disabling Tor Launcher, but the TOR_SKIP_LAUNCH env var is enough our needs.

So, in the end, it seems Tails doesn't need any changes at all to Tor Launcher. But this would change if we learn that Firefox 68esr will drop XUL standalone support.

FWIW, this is how we convert Tor Launcher into a standalone XUL app: https://git.tails.boum.org/tails/tree/config/chroot_local-hooks/10-tbb?h=feature/16356-tor-browser-9.0&id=f74cec4d7fc44d9b9eec37090990e1868ba592db#n97

Replying to anonym:

Good news! I have managed to get Tor Launcher from Tor Browser 9.0a1 running successfully in Tails. I just extracted it from browser/omni.ja, changed the directory layout to what is required and adjusted the paths in chrome.manifest accordingly.

Previously I discussed with geko about adding a pref for disabling Tor Launcher, but the TOR_SKIP_LAUNCH env var is enough our needs.

So, in the end, it seems Tails doesn't need any changes at all to Tor Launcher. But this would change if we learn that Firefox 68esr will drop XUL standalone support.

This is good news. Do you prefer the new "extract from omni.ja" approach instead of pulling a Tor Launcher tree and running make standalone? If no one is using make standalone I think we should remove it (rather than spending time to maintain it).

Trac:
Status: new to needs_information

Replying to mcs:

Do you prefer the new "extract from omni.ja" approach instead of pulling a Tor Launcher tree and running make standalone?

Yes! In fact, we haven't used make standalone for a couple of years (we just extract the XPI that ships with the Tor Browser Bundle).

If no one is using make standalone I think we should remove it (rather than spending time to maintain it).

Yes, dropping it is fine with us. Sorry for not making this clearer to you earlier!

Trac:
Keywords: N/A deleted, ux-team added

Trac:
Parent: N/A to #31283 (closed)

mentioned in issue #31283 (closed)

moved to tpo/applications/tor-launcher#30473 (closed)