- User Since
- Jan 22 2018, 9:08 AM (77 w, 5 d)
Jun 4 2019
Just as a data point: I am a daily startpage user but it has availability and performance problems. I switch to ddg every now and then when startpage does not respond but that is not something we want to put on our users (that's why I opted to merge the ddg patch for the moment).
Jun 3 2019
The same thing came up realted to GNOME Web: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/librem5-base/merge_requests/36 - phone and laptops should ship the same list (only exception I could see is a engine with super nice search results that doesn't work on mobile)
May 11 2019
hmm...but it also claims it already knows about 0.0.3:
May 10 2019
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 <email@example.com> Changed-By: Guido Günther <firstname.lastname@example.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
May 9 2019
$ dpkg --version Debian 'dpkg' package management program version 1.19.6 (amd64). This is free software; see the GNU General Public License version 2 or later for copying conditions. There is NO warranty.
A plain pbuilder (dpkg-buildpackage) build and then using the _source.changes
May 7 2019
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
Apr 24 2019
Apr 16 2019
I've reuploaded the same package I uploaded on jan 3rd. source package is librem5-devkit-tools.
Apr 12 2019
Other possibly interesting stuff:
The corresponding source package (librem5-devkit-tools) was uploaded but the librem5-devkit-host package did not make it into the archive. @mak did some investigations on why that happened but I don't think there was a clear outcome.
Mar 7 2019
From the phone perspective we we'd like to pull a rather fixed set of packages from e.g. Debian experimental during the freeze automatically (assuming Debian's GNOME team ends up putting the packages there) but after all it's more of an example of a general pattern: grab packages a, b, c from repository x (ideally including required dependencies not present in the target distribution).
Mar 5 2019
@jeremiah.foster Packaging is here: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/mfgtools/tree/pureos/purple
Jan 31 2019
This is also related to https://tracker.pureos.net/T594
Dec 19 2018
Dec 18 2018
Dec 17 2018
I've put initial packaging here https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/mfgtools/tree/pureos/purple .
RFP for Debian is . I'm happy to maintain this in Debian if someone from the PureOS team joins me.
Just for reference: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/librem5-devkit-tools - it will gain a librem5-devkit-host part with the next MR.
Dec 11 2018
Dec 10 2018
Dec 9 2018
Dec 7 2018
Nov 30 2018
Nov 27 2018
Oct 30 2018
Oct 17 2018
Oct 13 2018
@sean.obrien (this might become a bit off topic): the flatpak side needs more work for the 3rd party apps.
We have purple and laboratory in PureOS and the CI repos for phone development.
Oct 12 2018
Please see the GNOME case above, this is really not tied to our CI.
You have me confused now. I thought the whole transitioning between landing -> and green is there to detect these inconsistencies?
Also I'd be syncing for me does not imply syncing binaries. Rebuilding the ones not synced from testing would be a great first step in rebuilding everything.
Uploading to once place is more comfortable than to two ;)
Oct 10 2018
Aug 2 2018
I'm wondering if this is on anyone's horizon yet? If not I would put it on my TODO list since it would be good to have this running so we can test phone stuff on PureOS in gitlab's CI as well (instead of "only" Debian testing).
Jul 25 2018
Jul 23 2018
If we fix the underlying issue all users logged into a GNOME session will be in the KVM group and no additional work is necessay, it works out of the box (as users would expect). Just pull this systemd patch into PureOS:
Jul 10 2018
Jun 22 2018
Ubuntu's scripts (/usr/share/debootstrap/scripts) are also in Debian. Would be great if the same were to be true for pureos since that would tickle to all downstreams and enable many more people to contribute without hazards.
There's also tools like vmdeboostrap that invoke deboostrap / pbuilder directly. It would be much simpler if they could work out of the box.
Jun 19 2018
May 24 2018
Mar 27 2018
can we get rid of this hack? There will be more people contributing to pureos in the future (phone team).
@mak then what about
Mar 22 2018
(this relates to the original topic of recompiling packages not about having to rebuild because we carry patches)
Mar 2 2018
Feb 23 2018
Feb 22 2018
sudo adduser <youruser> kvm
newgrp kvm killall libvirtd libvirtd
I think I've found the issue: Can you try to add the user to the KVM group and see if it helps?
Feb 15 2018
Any chance somebody could run the above
Feb 14 2018
What version of libvirt, qemu and gnome-boxes is pureos currently shipping? Any patches on top of Debian proper?
@kyle.rankin the setcap is only for a follow up problem. It won't help with the CPU type conflict.
Feb 13 2018
Oh, installation on Debian buster works with e.g.:
@chris.lamb that's the same issue. Could someone having this problem please run
@chris.lamb yes, I think that's the same issue. I hope to get around to look at it again later this week.