Moving from private email to
[Moving from private email]

Pinged Debian bug…

Also, could they provide more information, like actual log files or similar? Currently it is just port numbers and IP addresses which are no evidence of anything.

Building my own PureOS ISO image?

• 79.125.105.113 is duckduckgo. I am not sure why this would load on /boot/
• Please re-ask the user to get the contents of these requests (ie. the port 80 ones as they won't be encrypted.

Sure thing; resolving.

Pinged Debian bug...

Merged upstream, we'll just have to wait for a release but there is no "next step" for now, so marking as "resolved".

Going to unassign myself for the time being. :)

gnucash is now back in Buster and thus PureOS; closing :)

and am working on packaging it for PureOS.

I'm going to unassign myself here; concentrating on Reproducible Builds. :)

Indeed, this appears to have nothing to do with Firefox (?).

I cannot rule out that it is a virus or a hacking attempt. But then again, I cannot rule out either that I am right now part of a secret government LSD experiment and hallucinating my computer screen - I just cannot make much use of such speculation.

no that does not seem alarming in itself

(Oh, I want that too but the page you linked is a high-level and textual status tracking document.)

I now put my own status-tracking document into the repository

The ROM/files/etc might be but that would not completely explain why we can't at least have a solution matrix here. :)

Merged in https://gitlab.com/libosinfo/osinfo-db/commit/3570a3965b6ebce5b59b8b2e96f0730f4c3e1340 via https://gitlab.com/libosinfo/osinfo-db/merge_requests/4

makes sense to do at least some basic testing before throwing out an image

I really don't get why this can't be resolved publically. For everybody that reports this issue here I would guess there are at least 10 others who are just bad-mouthing the device without us even knowing. Please can we have a solution matrix?

Ah, right… Well, see.. this is why I would looove a wiki page (or whatever overview) with a grid of the status, next steps and ticket number for each combination. Is this something @mladen.pejakovic could put together?

@kyle.rankin Alas, I feel you are unwary victim of the multitude of confusion and lack of clarity around this issue and the misleading tickets. A firmware update is definitely required for at least (!) LibremV3 with the UK physical layout - the key simply cannot be remapped in software as it is not generating the keycode/scancode whatsoever. ie. it is not a question of selecting the right layout in Gnome or similar - the key cannot work in Grub/the bios/boot, etc.

I can't recall why but it was asked that I kept the details off the public bugtracker at the time but I certainly remember that it did not need any special hardware. I'll leave this to the others cc'd above as they handled it last time, but I guess this is still evidence and underlines my previous pleas for a proper grid outlining the issue and solution for all Librem 13/Librem15 vs v3/v4 vs de/us/uk, etc.

So, um, the Librem13v3 w/DE keyboards need a firmware fix too? eg. https://tracker.pureos.net/T439#7821

Also included in

Gentle ping on this?

@mak Ping on this?

Refiled PR here:
https://gitlab.com/libosinfo/osinfo-db/merge_requests/4

@mak ISTR some update here in a different forum; can you briefly update this ticket on your plans/timeline? No rush on the action itself, but I just cannot recall the current status / hat / next steps

How far away do you think we are with this? I'm sure it would be a total boon for implicit communications within the PureOS team, @jeremiah.foster :)

in a binary .deb package you don't want your source control tool cruft left inside

package without .git and with debian/

ps. Worth learning git-gbp as, well, "most" of Debian uses it these days so you'll bump into it whether you like it not. :)

Nice work!

@mak Can you have a look?

Thanks. What you need to do next is:

Hey @hasolo, sorry for the delay in replying. Can you let me know exactly which version of systemd you are using? You can do this with:

Merged upstream and fixed locally in:

it's the value that we used for the other entries that were already in the file

the value on the right side is supposed to be a key name. Shouldn't this be something like KEYBOARD_KEY_56=backslash instead

See also https://dev.getsol.us/T6371

Upstream PR filed here:

@kyle.rankin Thanks for filing this. Should this also go upstream?

Very happy to take this. Indeed good call -- can you create a new, Librem 13v4-specific ticket for this and assign it to yours truly?

Ah, getcha. In that case, I suggest you checkout pristine-tar and the whole gbp-buildpackage flow in general. That will mean you have both worlds with no compromise. :)

Hey @jeremiah.foster I don't see your other branches, or I don't understand where your debian/ directory is..? :)

https://bugs.debian.org/919226 related

I'm going to go ahead and wontfix this as most of the changes are not appropriate to Debian and should be handled another way anyway, not via a "config package".

Link dump:

@kyle.rankin Okaley, so what's the next step here? This should have hit PureOS by now :)

Pinged upstream bug: https://gitlab.com/lamby/osinfo-db/merge_requests/1#note_127118132

Pinged Debian bug...

This weather is far more of for smokey bourbon...

ACCEPTED in Debian.

Accepted in Debian. (Grr at your insistence of License-Grant! j/k)

https://salsa.debian.org/qa/jenkins.debian.net/merge_requests/24 merged

As of this comment, we are at 84.5%. However:

Followed up in: https://bugs.debian.org/906609#90

Sure thing. Guilhem's Librem Key has arrived and is playing with it. :)

Indeed https://gist.githubusercontent.com/lamby/e45c7a221defe75db026ee529d00c789/raw no longer cleanly applies, will need to redo...

Link dump:

and, as luck has it, we have movement there:

https://tracker.debian.org/news/1005629/accepted-cryptsetup-2205-2-source-amd64-all-into-unstable/ was just uploaded to Debian, closing https://bugs.debian.org/888916 and https://bugs.debian.org/903163

Updated: https://bugs.debian.org/906609#71

ACK and I even looked at this ticket yesterday - we are still semi-blocking on the cryptroot and other refactorings in the Debian stuff but after that we will be able to merge this quickly. :)

@kyle.rankin Thanks for adding me to this ticket and apologies that it took longer than anticipated to get around to replying; I not only had to read the extended discussion here, I also had to do some research in order to work out what the situation is.

Filed MR as https://salsa.debian.org/qa/jenkins.debian.net/merge_requests/15

(Of course will keep this open; was just following-up here)

Pinged https://bugs.debian.org/906609#51

Pinged Debian bug...

FYI discussion and work on this is mostly happening on https://bugs.debian.org/903163

This was uploaded a while ago and is now in Debian, so closing.. (no further obvious action here...)