Thanks for the confirmation!
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
All Stories
Jun 3 2021
@jonas.smedegaard yes it works now \o/. Thanks!
Jun 2 2021
Makes sense to keep it open, I guess - but I don't expect much will happen here except keeping an eye on progress of this issue in Debian.
After digging through the Debian bug logs, they have a bug already filed under a similar title whose fix would cover this as well.
I find it unlikely that the Debian maintainer will join discussions here, and they are most suitable to address this issue.
Therefore I urge you to please fike a bugreport in Debian and discuss it there.
I'm not sure if it's still undergoing testing. I can tell you that Nitrokey is referencing it here:
In general I feel it's better that we receive into PureOS Debian packages as maintained by our upstream, namely Debian. It gives me pause that in this case, the maintainer of libpam-poldi and the person doing a lot of commits in the GitHub mirror are the same person: https://github.com/gpg/poldi/commits/master I don't know what it means that the package hasn't been updated in Debian - does the maintainer not have enough time? Is the patch still undergoing testing?
Understood that you're at the same commit level as Debian. I don't understand why they haven't applied that commit either. My thought was that I'd have better luck filing the request in PureOS's tracker rather than Debian's, because this materially affects the use of the Librem Key.
PureOS 10 has
We should not use this tool (Phabricator) to host source code.
I've uninstalled diffusion. Apparently this is sufficient to remove it from the various menus and it says "uninstalled" here: https://tracker.pureos.net/applications/view/PhabricatorDifferentialApplication/
Jun 1 2021
May 31 2021
There should currently be no git repos publicly accessible as part of our Phabricator instance at tracker.pureos.net.
(I say "should" because I distrust both PHP and my own ability to reliably web-navigate the many of options of Phabricator)
I have now disabled repo laniakea: It has apparently moved to https://source.puri.sm/pureos/infra/laniakea
I verified that the latest commit here is contained in the newer git repo.
I have now disabled repo pdak: It has apparently moved to https://source.puri.sm/pureos/infra/pdak
I verified that the latest commit here is contained in the newer git repo.
I have now disabled repo pureos-archive-keyring: It has apparently moved to https://source.puri.sm/pureos/core/pureos-archive-keyring
I verified that the latest commit here is contained in the newer git repo.
I have now disabled repo keysafe: It has moved to https://git.joeyh.name/git/keysafe.git/ as officially announced at https://joeyh.name/code/keysafe/
I verified that the latest commit here is contained in the newer git repo.
I have now disabled these repos which are empty:
- gnome-pureos2.1
- purebrowser
May 29 2021
@joao.azevedo Could you or one of your peers please have a look at this one? Smells to me like a hardware issue (hardware triggering some bogus events) rather than a software issue (systemd or kernel bogusly creating events out of thin air).
this issue has special access rights (and seems not needing that) - was it perhaps created some custom way, not using the topmost template?
Thanks for clarifying.
Thanks for clarifying.
Thanks for clarifying.
May 28 2021
@jonas.smedegaard not an issue, the script in question is deprecated, and it's not part of PureOS (nor should it be)
@jonas.smedegaard no to both
@jonas.smedegaard no to both
Closing as invalid: Impossible to investigate further when not even original reporter knows what concretely to investigate.
What I meant to say above is that "incomplete" to me makes sense for an issue actionable only by original reporter.
Closing as "invalid", by the reasoning that an issue unreproducible even by original reporter is not actionable.
@MrChromebox Is this still an issue, and is it tied to PureOS?
@MrChromebox Is this an issue, and is it tied to PureOS?
@MrChromebox Do you know if this is still an issue, and if it is tied to PureOS or (as it seems to me) to Purism firmware flashed onto laptops and possibly published directly by Purism as package as well but not shipped with PureOS)?
thanks for the clarification - tagging accordingly.
Seems nothing is incomplete here...
Assuming this issue is solved with a) using newer PureOS and b) only using PureOS.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
@joao.azevedo this issue is hexchat hardcoding a specific web browser - and therefore not specific to PureBrowser (that's just how it was noticed).
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
@mak also would it make sense to paste the link to download the image in question here, in case anyone is willing to test and provide feedback?
I have tested PureOS 10 on a device with UEFI and it booted. A Librem Mini v1 that was not yet flashed with Pureboot/coreboot+seabios.
I can ask around in some chats if anyone with libreboot is willing to try it, because that would be very cool.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Closed due to lack of response from original reporter.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Also on a related note, Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Please (if still an issue now several years later) report that other issue as an independent issue report. Thanks.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.
@adfeno I notice you mention lack of help examining, and also that you rely on licensecheck for your examination.
Purism has abandoned the development of PureBrowser for some time now.