Case 4)
No prior partitions.

best I can tell, this is an issue with compiling memtest86+ with gcc-8, and not something that can be easily fixed within the framework of current coreboot toolchain

No, that doesn't help;

TASK DETAIL

http://tracker.pureos.net/T563

EMAIL PREFERENCES

http://tracker.pureos.net/settings/panel/emailpreferences/

We've recently done a phd restart so let's see if that helps . . .

Thanks for opening the discussion here.

Changing to 'incomplete' since we cannot recreate the original issue.

Can currently also not reproduce it. Seems to be very dependent on internal state? We can close it if you want.

@jeremiah.foster , here is the tracker issue we were talking about in the L5 team meeting today

This is blocking https://tracker.pureos.net/w/pureos/tips/prevent_device_tracking_by_untrusted_access_points/

Plan is to remain on Buster for PureOS Green.

Removing myself as assignee of this issue: Seems done by myself accidentally, and in any case I am incapable of driving this issue.

Correction: This _is_ a freedom issue, not because it (optionally) uses nonfree (or rather closed-protocol) service but because (optionall, when configuring to use that protocol) it downloads nonfree software.

Alternatively you can build from source?

Already built it but it's unstable, buggy and freezy. It can indeed detect but not block all outbound connections.

Making slow but steady progress ...

Ah, sorry, you're right. The package comes from Debian stable. I forgot to check for that. I guess I need to find a PureOS package with MySQL C++ bindings instead

hola no entiendo muy bien la pregunta
opensnitch_1.0.deb es paquete para amd64 ,
Para copilar segui las instrucciones / https://github.com/evilsocket/opensnitch

hmm...but it also claims it already knows about 0.0.3:

Well....

Version check failed:
Your upload included the source package librem5-devkit-tools, version 0.0.2,
however landing already has version 0.0.2.
Uploads to landing must have a higher version than present in landing.

Looks like this version is already in (I see it in all suites):

librem5-devkit-tools | 0.0.2         | green      | source
librem5-devkit-tools | 0.0.2         | landing    | source
librem5-devkit-tools | 0.0.2         | purple     | source

reuploaded.

@guido You're absolutely right, sorry - I was confusing the .dsc and .changes files somehow (the former already has all the necessary information).
Apparently the architecture in your previous changes file was not (only) set to source, and therefore a non-source upload was suumed, which does required the Binary field.
Anyway, to make some progress on this, can you please attempt another upload? I am curious at what dak has to say to that, and if it gets rejected again, I can debug the issue further looking directly into dak to determine why it things the package is unsuitable.

If it's just changes like a different slideshow, icon, colors and logo image then yes, that's possible ...

@mak Good to know, thanks. I've been experimenting with a number of concepts and as soon as I'll have something noteworthy, I'll let you know about it.

... the GNOME flavor is currently the focus of development, ...

I'm aware of that but it makes perfect sense for Plasma to be treated in an equal manner. It is just as much in demand as GNOME.

You can also style ...

I can come up with concepts and I can make graphics but CSS/QSS is probably not my thing at the moment, but one never knows. I just want the installer to look a little better, that's all. An installer is exactly that. It doesn't need to be a wiki or have many slides IMHO, but it must convey a short and to-the-point message:

A user friendly, secure and freedom respecting GNU/Linux OS for your daily usage.
With PureOS, you are the only one in control of your digital life.
FSF-endorsed

That's all it needs to say. But that's just my opinion. This OS is not only targeting people who are already GNU/Linux users but also, if not predominantly, people who are fleeing from Windows and Mac and who don't necessarily know or particularly care about what

Do you have additional repos enabled in your sources.list and/or sources.list.d? I don't see libmysql++-dev in our repos: https://repo.pureos.net/pureos/pool/main/libm/

But source only packages don't have binary fields, do they?

$ diff -u librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_source.changes librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_amd64.changes 
--- librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_source.changes	2019-05-10 09:40:03.547341329 +0200
+++ librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_amd64.changes	2019-05-10 09:40:03.251334929 +0200
@@ -1,12 +1,16 @@
 Format: 1.8
 Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 18:14:54 +0100
 Source: librem5-devkit-tools
-Architecture: source
+Binary: librem5-devkit-check librem5-devkit-host
+Architecture: source all
 Version: 0.0.2
 Distribution: green
 Urgency: medium
 Maintainer: Guido Günther <agx@sigxcpu.org>
 Changed-By: Guido Günther <agx@sigxcpu.org>
+Description:
+ librem5-devkit-check - Check script for the librem5-evk (devkit)
+ librem5-devkit-host - Tools for the librem5 devkit (host side)
 Changes:
  librem5-devkit-tools (0.0.2) green; urgency=medium
  .
@@ -50,12 +54,18 @@
 Checksums-Sha1:
  81e28197203dca97ff08210434712b507af87e4e 807 librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2.dsc
  6fa81bb4a16c215876d90a0b5621694606f4499f 3145044 librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2.tar.xz
+ af677461b38832c9bf982731c7e2da25f4d32c08 4344 librem5-devkit-check_0.0.2_all.deb
+ 98a5091e26dd981556b6af50f27956685ac96739 7292 librem5-devkit-host_0.0.2_all.deb
  44505ad3ed264d8f36050ccce0f5d8aaa6152281 5586 librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_amd64.buildinfo
 Checksums-Sha256:
  9e2678e5f7f47e0bea0bb5e4d4a444ac55cf1277ba6f758de4cb7ab4fa7bca61 807 librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2.dsc
  409c7da987f61417393a3b9a6928db6f6fb126785e830c292515a1053787c326 3145044 librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2.tar.xz
+ f868c11abb80cb704a275bbb0aad829553fc03b81e7779f1f04e33459d7a5397 4344 librem5-devkit-check_0.0.2_all.deb
+ bf2ffd3d7cc9ffcf14295bb88f021cf6b38286437e3c3aa8b2dd37b5318a4d0e 7292 librem5-devkit-host_0.0.2_all.deb
  8ea700fb34b8ef045ca5fa89cd42d4315da8769686da1f9e764d329ce509a7f8 5586 librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_amd64.buildinfo
 Files:
  9d92f14fb555cdb72716629b18ac7535 807 utils optional librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2.dsc
  abf12ff17e58b7bc620e80bd4784954a 3145044 utils optional librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2.tar.xz
+ 1f4bec1041b0a3824402e7b913dedb01 4344 utils optional librem5-devkit-check_0.0.2_all.deb
+ 06c0b6e379a2770c5d491f72e2caeafe 7292 utils optional librem5-devkit-host_0.0.2_all.deb
  cda9774535ca4072ee0b89d7ec4c2e5e 5586 utils optional librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_amd64.buildinfo

Thanks for confirming. Enjoy :-)

Hello everybody,

Thanks for noticing, @Amgine.

NB: at least as of 29 Jan 2019 Nextcloud-desktop is in Buster Testing.

You can also maybe circumvent the issue by doing a binary upload, but it would actually be useful to know what went wrong here.

Ok, weird - maybe just build it again and see what happens (the dpkg version in the chroot env also needs to be high enough).

Very strange... Do you happen to have the package built with dpkg << 1.19.3?
You need at least that version to generate a valid package.

Done - the package was actually already synced, I just forgot to close this issue.
The new changes were stuck in testing though, due to a dependency issue, which is now fixed as well (so expect the package to become available soon).

Works for me, at least so far. I will retry later perhaps with new content.

A plain pbuilder (dpkg-buildpackage) build and then using the _source.changes

Some users claim that lack of cups-filters prevents them from printing: https://forums.puri.sm/t/cant-print-ghostscript-fails-with-unable-to-determine-number-of-pages/5698

In T767#14406, @jonas.smedegaard wrote:

I agree that it seems the study gets installed onto the local machine - but not run: the fix was not applied.
My concern was if backdoor could be abused (i.e. I focused on the "and" in your original title).
You got a point that even if not succesfully executed there is a concern that Mozilla can push data onto the local machine at all.
Issue title adapted accordingly.

I agree that it seems the study gets installed onto the local machine - but not run: the fix was not applied.

In T767#14378, @jonas.smedegaard wrote:

I am still not convinced that anything more severe than cosmetic was "going on": Please clarify how you come to the conclusion that Firefox Shield studies was installed and run.

@Gnutella If it's just changes like a different slideshow, icon, colors and logo image then yes, that's possible - I already did that once.
That said, the GNOME flavor is currently the focus of development, the Plasma flavor is less well maintained (so focusing on GNOME as long as it doesn't completely break the Plasma installations would also be fair).

firefox-esr (a.k.a. PureBrowser) 60.6.2esr-1pureos1 was confirmed accepted 25 minuts ago.

The plot thickens

For the "pull in the latest firefox-esr from Debian" part, it was prepared earlier today¹ and uploading (but failing and failing) now².

I am still not convinced that anything more severe than cosmetic was "going on": Please clarify how you come to the conclusion that Firefox Shield studies was installed and run.

I've added support to debuerreotype for that https://github.com/debuerreotype/debuerreotype/pull/63 and put current images here: https://hub.docker.com/r/godiug/pureos/tags

In T767#14369, @jonas.smedegaard wrote:

Is PureBrowser the *only* Mozilla browser you run on that machine?

@mak I'm coming from source and turns out that what I had in mind is rather inconvenient to do because it would require 2 Cala packages. One for Gnome and one for Plasma. Dare I ask if it's feasible?

It is my understanding that PureBrowser is immune to the Normandy backdoor, because PureBrowser has removed the hidden system add-on "Application Update Service Helper" (along with all other hidden system add-ons).

Is PureBrowser the *only* Mozilla browser you run on that machine?

So if this is going to be PureOS specific then we need to discuss this with @francois because he'll have PureOS related material that I imagine we'll want to use. If it is not meant to be PureOS specific, just a generic installer, then I don't really have an opinion beyond respecting existing copyrights and trademarks. I do hope to limit any customizations to images and slides that clarify what is happening for the user. I think it should be abundantly clear that the user is installing PureOS if that is in fact what is happening.