So, there is a kernel panic because the kernel can't seem to find a file system to mount. How did you install GNOME? Did you use a USB stick or an ISO or similar? Or are you using apt-get or some other means?

The Librem's have a version that I think represents the physical device on the back, one of my Librems says "Librem 13, version 3." If you want to find the software version, or version of the overall OS, try this command (you may have to install inxi);

$ inxi -Fxrz

Which on my system produces;

System:    Host: sigmund Kernel: 4.18.0-2-amd64 x86_64 bits: 64 compiler: gcc v: 7.3.0 Console: tty 1 Distro: PureOS 
           base: Debian buster/sid 
Machine:   Type: Laptop System: Purism product: Librem 13 v3 v: 3.0 serial: <filter> 
           Mobo: Purism model: Librem 13 v3 v: 3.0 serial: <filter> BIOS: coreboot v: 4.7-Purism-4 date: 03/20/2018 
Repos:     Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list 
           1: deb https://repo.puri.sm/pureos green main
           Active apt repos in: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/debian.list 
           1: deb http://deb.debian.org/debian stretch main contrib non-free
           2: deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian stretch main contrib non-free
           3: deb http://deb.debian.org/debian stretch-updates main contrib non-free
           4: deb-src http://deb.debian.org/debian stretch-updates main contrib non-free
           5: deb http://security.debian.org/ stretch/updates main contrib non-free
           6: deb-src http://security.debian.org/ stretch/updates main contrib non-free

You can see from output above that I'm running a 4.18 kernel. My distro is PureOS based on Debian Buster / Sid (so testing) and that my repos are PureOS 'green' mixed with Debian stretch. In the "Machine:" line I note that coreboot version is 4.78-Purism-4 from 03/20/2018. PureOS "green" may be a rolling release which means that the userland packages (and kernel potentially) are updated continually.

I think that the version of PureBrowser you showed there is quite old. I wonder if we need to discuss with the distributor about updating the software on the devices? I propose we bring this to a Production / QC meeting.

Is this a duplicate of https://tracker.pureos.net/T595?

This is not so surprising for a 'dist-upgrade'. I don't know if you want to do the dist-upgrade or not, perhaps you need those important packages and don't want them removed, but if you like you can try just doing a regular apt upgrade that will not be as invasive.

Cool. I have another Librem that was sent to me for testing, I'm going to look for this too on that one. I worry that some of the machines may be shipping with older software.

This appeared on a laptop that was shipped to me this week. I'll check the vintage of the software.

Can you share the command you used? Also, what is in your /etc/apt/sources.list (or /etc/apt/sources.list.d/* ?

I can't reproduce this.

What is the error message you're getting from update-initramfs?

I think making a flatpak and hosting that flatpak is an acceptable approach. This is why;

It feels like there is a decision to be made here: are we going to invest time and resources in PureOS components when they are not in Debian yet? My feeling from the team is that the answer is an emphatic "yes."

Thank you David. I'm going to take the C as a passing grade and close this tracker item concluding that Gitlab CE is sufficiently free for our purposes.

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2015-03/msg00095.html

More discussion on this topic upstream: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/51287
NB: This thread ^^ is about Gitlab Community Edition.

I think you're right Jonas. I'll set up a tracker per add-on.

Thanks @Wayne, I'm sorry to hear you've given up on PureBrowser, still a vote for the add-ons you'd like to see might be the way to prioritize which add-ons are most important to users.

Thank you @mladen.pejakovic. From what I can see, this essentially solves the issue no? I think we should close this issue. If we need discussion Sean on the list of add-ons you specified (DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials, Decentraleyes, Privacy Badger, Privacy Possum, Exodify, TOS;DR, Polisis), let's use a separate bug to track that issue.

Shouldn't #1 be in the form of a wiki page or other policy document? Then we can take whatever concrete issues or features that need to be worked on by engineering in atomic, bite-size peices?

So this issue still exists for me, namely I'm unable to install extensions. Here is the user agent that PureBrowser left in my logs;

I have two perspectives, one on the content and one on work flow. As far as content is concerned I think it is addressed by folks who know the issues better than I, so I'm not going to wade in on that. As far as work flow is concerned I defer to Jonas who has to use the tool to be efficient, so he gets to decide how the work is broken down.