ok. Please in future use chat for guidance - or the user support forum, perhaps - as issue tracker is better suited to track issues (bugs and pseudo-bugs like wishlist requests) tied to components of the Operating system.

Perhaps I should have been clearer, this was just a query about *how* to check that my second disk is encrypted. You have answered my query so I closed the ticket :)

I am confused: Did that actually fix the reported issue?

Seems an issue for @mak.

Seems an issue for @mak.

Seems an issue for @mak.

Seems an issue for @mak.

Seems an issue for @mak.

Seems an issue for @mak.

Seems an issue for @mak.

Thanks! lsblk results:

Please consider filing an RFP bug in Debian - and then reference the resulting bugnumber here: https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting

Please consider filing an RFP bug in Debian - and then reference the resulting bugnumber here: https://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting

One way to inspect what is on encrypted volumes is typing lsblk in a terminal - volumes in branches off of a *_crypt entry is encrypted.

Perhaps you typed "255" in the popup dialog, where it expects "T255"?

At best, this is low priority.

Hmmm, this should be closed as a duplicate of https://tracker.pureos.net/T255 but I can't bring it up :P

See also https://tracker.pureos.net/T398

As far as I'm aware MPRIS is DE-independent, and music players that implement MPRIS also implement minimise-on-close behavior (citation needed). I've made a list of music players for comparison (arbitrary selection based on *I've heard that name in forums so I believe it's "popular"*), and I'll also query QL upstream. (All this as time allows.)

Thanks for reporting!

Technically harmless - data reporting is disabled so only a rogue obsolete message tied with our rename from Mozilla to Purism (as per Mozilla trademark guidelines) - but bad user experience nevertheless.

@jonas.smedegaard the Librem 15 v3 has a TN screen (instead of ISP) so it is not really good for graphics and I do my work on the Librem 13 instead.

Yeah, for us it is a change needed for consistency and ease of development, but for our users it doesn't matter at all and thereby is more of a cosmetic change (I should have been clearer on what I meant ^^).

Thanks, although I mildly disagree that it's just cosmetic change given that it requires separate access with yet another set of credentials and ACL to maintain etc. etc etc.

Ok, in that case I claim this task again - this is really not blocking anything at all, in a way it's more a cosmetic/consistency change. I had it on my todo list anyway, so having this bug makes sense.

In T387#7065, @mak wrote:

@todd Why did you reassign the task?

In T393#7101, @jonas.smedegaard wrote:

@todd: Can Purism pay for a ColorHug2 for me? It is an Open Source Hardware (OSHW) certified device using Free drivers. It costs 95 british pounds.

ColorHug2 ordered - should be shipped tomorrow (from UK to Denmark, so if lucky arrives this week).

thanks for the input, @davidrevoy.

@jonas.smedegaard : Thank you for adding this item to the tracker after my review and for the ping by email.

I co-maintain the package icc-profiles-free in debian where it would be appropriate to include ICC profiles once created.

@todd Why did you reassign the task?
It is still valid, even if Chris can now commit to the repo (which I though he could...), but moving it will need quite a lot more changes to not break things - that's the reason why all infrastructure components are still on Github, especially since Gogs was very unreliable initially and we couldn't risk these repositories to go down.

Added lamby as a github admin

SHow.. thanks =)

this looks like an issue for @mak

What URL(s) are you talking about?

If Firefox is also installed on the system, the PureBrowser FSF add-ons pages becomes the normal Firefox add-ons page instead.

At the moment, this is not easily possible without setting up some kind of merge with Github or redirection, as a couple of tools pull data from the repository and have it hardcoded.
I want to have the repository and everything else moved rather soon though, and at the same time split the "PureOS" group at Gogs into pureos-packages and pureos proper, so all the infrastructure pieces can live there as well and we have a separate place for packages (for easier permission control, clear scope and less potential for name conflicts).

Yes, the image I used is this one: pureos-8.0-gnome-oem_20180408-amd64.hybrid.iso. I even validated the sha256sum for the file, to make sure that it was downloaded correctly.

You got the image from https://downloads.puri.sm/oem/gnome/2018-04-08/ ?

I tried to use the latest ISO, and now I get the error that no kernel modules can be found when I try to run "Start installer", and the error that "/vmlinuz is missing", when I try the "Live ISO" option.

Hi Harvey,

Ah, it's on code.puri.sm. Getcha. Wfm now!

Sorry @chris.lamb. Gogs silliness. You need to be added as a collaborator to see it. Can you check now?

In T375#6988, @theodotos.andreou wrote:

https://code.puri.sm/Purism/Systems-Tasks/issues/58

It' here:

The priority on this is fine, this is a high-priority bug. After getting the debconf prompt once though, you will never see it again.
As for the config file prompt, that is a thing we can ignore for now (it's a minor annoyance regular users won't even see because PackageKit will do the right thing. It's also very tricky to resolve, we likely need to incorporate some changes in the Grub package itself).

Ok, so if the same changes ever pop up again I'll accept them (change GRUB_DISTRIBUTOR and drop GRUB_ENABLE_CRYPTODISK).

The config file change is harmless (I wonder why it's even shown), but the Debconf prompt should never have happened - this means the installer hasn't configured debconf for the GRUB package for some reason.

The reason this was fixed by forking apparmor (not including an apparmor snippet with purebrowser package) was to address generally the need of application needing access to browser to also be granted that for PureBrowser.

Since firefox-esr 52.5.0esr-1pureos2 released 2017-12-19, this issue is solved by renaming only binary package (not source package as previous), to stay closer to Deban and ease sharing our patches with Debian and other derivatives wanting to do similar.

In T363#6906, @jonas.smedegaard wrote:

Ah, it seems AppAmor contains a hardcoded list of web browsers, and needs to be educated about the existence of PureBrowser in the file

/etc/apparmor.d/abstractions/ubuntu-browsers