March 2019 - PureOS-project - Purism Mailing Lists

"PureOS changes" notifications
by Chris Lamb 14 Jun '19

14 Jun '19

Hi -project, Many years ago I created an IRC bot for Debian that would live on its own channel and simply notify on new uploads, bugs and similar changes in that distribution: https://chris-lamb.co.uk/projects/debian-devel-changes-bot … it is now rather popular and, indeed, many people have noted to me in the interim years not only how motivating it was to be exposed to others' work like that without having to explicitly or actively look for it but it informs & keeps them up-to-date on the project in a wider, less-technical, sense. I found it also a valuable learning tool — if I don't understand a bug report that scrolls past I sometimes click it and invariably end up learning something I didn't previously know. § In this light, I created the following ticket early last year to get this rolling for PureOS: https://tracker.pureos.net/T375 … however, movement on this appears to have stalled or otherwise is lower on others' priority lists than I believe it should be. The basic idea would be to have a separate "dev/pureos/changes" (or similarly named) Matrix room that would have this info spammed into it. Discussions would remain on dev/pureos or, of course, on issue tracker, etc. The bug itself unfortunately is a little ambiguous about what we would like to include in the notifications (tracker bugs vs uploads vs Git commits...), but I firmly and adamently believe that getting *anything* at the moment would be great start so I wasn't being overly specific by design. (The task is also being tracked in parallel on the sysadmin tasks tracker too, adding somewhat to the confusion.) Note that this would also help relieve some developers of feeling like they are the only ones who know about certain areas, preventing further potential "siloing" of knowledge. Just to underline, whilst it might appear to be a "wishlist" feature, I believe it will provide some always-needeed social cohesion and connection within the PureOS development team! As geeks we often criminally underrated such things.. we are humans too! Any thoughts? In particular, can we get some strong +1's from you all (especially Jeremiah) to take back to the ticket and hopefully parley that into getting this reprioritised? Best wishes, -- Chris Lamb https://puri.sm

2 2

Let's stablize PureoS Green
by François Téchené 22 Mar '19

22 Mar '19

Hi, I am joining this discussion to expose the vision from the UI/UX design side of PureOS. In term of UI/UX design, we are conforming to the Ethical Design manifesto (https://2017.ind.ie/ethical-design/) . Based on that we have defined a few guidelines that we want to make sure are respected. - One of them is that we target the majority of the population in term of user experience. This means that we should think in term of "democratic" choice. The question we keep asking ourselves is : Will the defaults work best for the majority of human beings? The idea here is to avoid proposing different flavors for different tastes but to focus on defaults that targets the majority. - Another guideline we would like to be respected is that we should contribute upstream. No matter which project we want to adopt, we shouldn't put our effort in forking it but instead in joining the community in that global effort for the sake of everyone. In that regard, we are currently contributing to the GNOME project as the default PureOS DE on both the laptop and the phone. We have been working for the past year, along with the GNOME design team in designing the GNOME mobile interfaces as well as bringing convergence to the desktop (laptop) platform. This is a work in progress that is being implemented by both the Purism devs and the community. Some of that work has already been implemented as part of GNOME 3.32. My point here is that GNOME, as a whole, along with GTK+ will dramatically evolve in the next few years in order match the user experience that we are designing and developing for the Librem products. Our goal is to define a tight integration and consistent experience between Librem Laptops, Librem Phone, PureOS, Librem One and the Librem Key. We need to experience the experience that we design and that the devs are implementing, as well as delivering to the people in a not too long frequency. So if we decide to go for a stable long term release of the core OS, one solution for us would be : - To have a "dev" PureOS repository that would let us test the latest GNOME and GTK updates (along with the stable packages of the core system in order to test the stability of a release within the current core packages?) - To be able to release GNOME upgrades to our users in a not too long frequency (maximum 1 year) ideally the 6 months GNOME release cycle. I think this is a critical time for us in term of user experience so we must not rush in the decisions and make sure we find a good compromise. Thank you! -- https://puri.sm

6 26

Building my own PureOS ISO image?
by Chris Lamb 19 Mar '19

19 Mar '19

Hi pureos-project, I'm trying to build a PureOS ISO image on my own system but can't seem to locate a script/repo/documentation, etc. I'm probably just missing something obvious. To clarify, I'm trying to build an ISO like: https://www.pureos.net/download/ ... rather than the OEM image. I'm guess Matthias is the person to specifically ask here? (Ping?) Just to underline it really doesn't matter how ugly/manual the process is or that it could potentially be improved — everything always can be and I won't "judge" anyone on the status quo, especially for non-daily processes; I'd just like to build one myself. Best wishes, -- Chris Lamb https://puri.sm

4 20

Let's stablize PureoS Green
by Jeremiah C. Foster 18 Mar '19

18 Mar '19

Hi, In the few months I've been with Purism, I've been astonished by the ability of the team to build PureOS with the resources at hand. One of the reasons for this is likely the use of Laniakea as CI but of course the bulk of the reason is the quality of the base distro and the experience of those who're developing PureOS. There are naturally some pain points that come with new products like the Purism Librem laptops. I think that some of these rough edges might be smoothed by following Debian Testing as it becomes Debian Stable and keeping Debian Stable as our "Green" repository for PureOS packages. I've floated this idea internally in Purism and there has been a great deal of support for the idea. Others have also identified Debian Testing as being too fast moving for the Librem. While I mentioned this in another thread, I'd like to use this thread for discussion on the idea's merits as well as what is required technically to do this. What do those folks on this mailing list think? Should we keep PureOS Green on Debian (Buster) Stable? Thanks, Jeremiah

5 8

Buster Freeze
by Jeremiah C. Foster 14 Mar '19

14 Mar '19

https://release.debian.org/buster/freeze_policy.html So Buster is Frozen today if I'm not mistaken. Is there anything we ought to do in our Laniakea for us to track the Freeze? My assumption is that we'll see fewer updates as fewer packages will be accepted into testing. Also, if Debian removes packages from testing, will those get remove from PureOS? I'm thinking about things like gksu, do we have to manually remove packages that are removed from Debian? Regards, Jeremiah

3 7

Re: [PureOS] Building my own PureOS ISO image?
by Jeremiah C. Foster 14 Mar '19

14 Mar '19

On Mon, 2019-03-11 at 19:50 +0100, Matthias Klumpp wrote: > Am Mo., 11. März 2019 um 18:47 Uhr schrieb Jeremiah C. Foster > <jeremiah.foster(a)puri.sm>: > > [...] > > > > Re-reading this question the answer should be "no". I'm running > > Clear > > Linux on the host, I boot into PureOS via systemd-nspawn. So PureOS > > is > > running in a container. > > Ah! So, you are running debspawn in a PureOS container created with > systemd-nspawn? Yes, exactly. > That's probably not a good idea, because it means you are nesting > containers, as debspawn will create another ephemeral container on > its > own as well. I think this is where the problem is as well. pagemap file appears to map process memory usage from virtual to physical. I guess some process is filling it up. Having a container on a container on a host makes the debugging process a bit difficult. > So I guess this behavior might be some kind of bug related to nesting > containers (I am actually very surprised that nspawn lets you do that > - I never tried that but always thought that it wouldn't work anyway. > > Cheers, > Matthias > > P.S: Debspawn will probably work on any distribution that has > debootstrap, but I don't think anyone has tried that yet. debootstrap is on my Clear Linux system. I used it to create the PureOS container and for various Debian chroots. The machine itself is quite powerful; 8 core i7-8705G CPU @ 3.10GHz with hyperthreading. It makes for a speedy build machine and I like the Clear Linux use of OStree, but I think I need to move the machine to Debian or, alternatively, use the other build script. There is no substantive difference between the two build approaches is there, I mean aside from environment. Cheers, Jeremiah > --- > I welcome VSRE emails. See http://vsre.info/ <-- Interesting. :-)

2 2

Clarification of PureOS browser and browser policy
by Jeremiah C. Foster 08 Mar '19

08 Mar '19

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi, We have a rather sizable backlog of issues around the PureBrowser: https://tracker.pureos.net/project/board/1/ I point this out not as a criticism of Jonas, the PureBrowser maintainer, but to highlight that we do not have a clear, distilled policy document that might mitigate some of the issues in the backlog. One example is this issue: https://tracker.pureos.net/T699 That issue comes from a video of PureOS which makes some inaccurate claims. The video was linked in our bug tracker and I went through the video and pulled out the claims so that they can be refuted, T699 tracks one such claim of not having httpseverywhere enabled per default. Having a policy for an issue like this would allow someone to quickly go to our policy, quote it in the issue tracker and/or demonstrate that in fact we do have httpseverywhere installed, and then close the bug which I feel is a positive outcome. As it stands now, we have a lot of issues that seem to attract a lot of commentary but little change is effecutated. For me the point of an issue tracker is to track the progress of the issue to the point where it is no longer an issue and it is closed. Is this a shared view from folks on this list? Regards, jeremiah -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGzBAEBCgAdFiEEBkkHqXr+u7OUqMKseFgrT+6RsjkFAlxm9YQACgkQeFgrT+6R sjnVagv+L0v1WkdLZ3jL2NoZbJr8ROE2/SPUyBe67chr1v1dOJIyyxcw9/Ol1FGU dztk+/XwKri9SHlV9lP7lTim/RxPbZ5wxVPQf+S3n8KDNnOOBdpRbo0xRYd/qqTM aIeYrfZTwmJcK+cszrr8Zpse1YUaB6RgMvj/0XFHRlbGVvUCXeYafxomtsAz4Ron huz57a50lqXgOP0hQ4mYp3mCvPOJZQokTnNVJon5oifNbGf7+Ex/qW68B9/5aVoU I7TCY3W2TT26RnKxIHMKOHMOkmidWt+DRxh7QCxS1OMkhf+4KxDGboyRRDUBGH1/ IJu7XQFCwQ+bbtWT2ZSRqxgnPxaPgjhIt3ypGOBiBOWDX/f8Wrdq0I+RsS/boIGS A26CGs47NTEU/C4LActM3Sg+IvS7+r2LHr4USgw/Zxyn7lvO1EJ/332whA+ZAsvg XXQOc1PznOrIovUZJsTVoReQbOPIS/p9W4CM0bBFCN0R/JiuT57eBKEzA8+/EKUE T349zjsC =a8Ly -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 3

Re: [PureOS] Building images and mailing lists
by Matthias Klumpp 06 Mar '19

06 Mar '19

Am Mi., 6. März 2019 um 21:38 Uhr schrieb Jeremiah C. Foster <jeremiah.foster(a)puri.sm>: > > Hi, > > I've added a firmware updater package to the repos, it looks like it is > still stuck in landing though it is hard to say since I can't seem to > find it. The package is likely the one stuck in NEW - I rejected it a few days ago, but maybe you haven't received an email about that. I kicked the system again, as there were some log messages on mails not being able to be sent. In any case, I sent you this message about the package: ------8<------ Hi! I am sorry but I have to reject the package at its current state: * It has a Debian revision number (-1) but does not exist in Debian. Uploads to PureOS must follow the PureOS versioning rules, otherwise we break compatibility with Debian. See https://tracker.pureos.net/w/development/packaging_overview/#version-numbers for details. * The binary package is in an unknown section. I can not add overrides for the package unless you set a proper section. * The changelog contains the default "new package" boilerplate, it would be neat to have a slightly more descriptive message there. Cheers, Matthias ------>8------ Only the first points are actually issues which made me reject the upload. Packages which introduce new binary packages or source packages to PureOS and therefore require override changes always end up in NEW for manual review, and you should get an email about that event as well. You can also take a look at what is in NEW via this (realtively hidden) URL: https://master.pureos.net/raw/web/new.html If you ever wonder on what is going on with the archive or packages in it, I can almost guarantee that the answer exists on master.pureos.net somewhere :-) > I've asked for a login from the sys folks so I can look around > in the repos. I'd love it if someone (Matthias?) were to let me know > how to ensure that packages get picked up - seems like a manual process > at the moment and there are lots of packages coming from the L5 phone > folks so this doesn't really scale well. It's fully automated. Only packages that go through new need an extra review step. > Also, I read with interest this discussion on how folks are moving away > from Discourse back to mailing lists (largely because they're > asynchronous). > https://lwn.net/ml/fedora-council-discuss/CAEg-Je-wUDS+RAvS-8v4Qpu+GeiWv0-w… That is indeed interesting - I always found Discourse a bit confusing and hard to keep track of discussions with it, but I also never actually gave it a fair chance (so far I didn't participate in a project that was exclusively using Discourse for communication). Cheers, Matthias

1 0

Building images and mailing lists
by Jeremiah C. Foster 06 Mar '19

06 Mar '19

Hi, I've added a firmware updater package to the repos, it looks like it is still stuck in landing though it is hard to say since I can't seem to find it. I've asked for a login from the sys folks so I can look around in the repos. I'd love it if someone (Matthias?) were to let me know how to ensure that packages get picked up - seems like a manual process at the moment and there are lots of packages coming from the L5 phone folks so this doesn't really scale well. Also, I read with interest this discussion on how folks are moving away from Discourse back to mailing lists (largely because they're asynchronous). https://lwn.net/ml/fedora-council-discuss/CAEg-Je-wUDS+RAvS-8v4Qpu+GeiWv0-w… Regards, Jeremiah

1 0