Hi,
I've looked into the Synchronization issue list in landing and noticed
that util-linux, which has PureOS specific modifications, has got a
security update in Debian bullseye by version 2.36.1-8+deb11u1.
PureOS has currently version 2.36.1-8pureos3.
Backporting this security update isn't that difficult. But while working
on this I came to the point to commit the modifications. :-)
But I feel the branch pureos/latest wouldn't be the correct branch as
latest implies that the data is …
[View More]quite the most recent stuff.
Yeah, we are talking about landing which follows bullseye, but looking a
bit further there a lot of backported versions for PureOS are put into
$latest or into pureos/byzantium (correctly in my eyes) within the L5
world I'm thinking putting such security backporting work within
packages that have PureOS specific modifications should be done also
within a branch pureos/byzantium called.
Before doing more work in that corner it would be good to have some
consensus about that topic. :-)
What do others thinks? Maybe I've overseen some already similar revised
packages.
--
Regards
Carsten Schoenert
[View Less]
Hi,
some information about packaging and other work I've done last month
within PureOS.
Due some time constraints grounded on lots of stuff I needed to do at my
usual day job I wasn't able to do all the things I'd liked to have done
within PureOS. But well, at least some things I was getting done. :)
* gnome-clocks
Reviewed and later merge in of MR15 and MR16 from Steve, prepared a new
version 40.0-2pureos1.
Further email discussions with Steve about other adjustments for
gnome-clocks.
…
[View More]https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/debs/gnome-clocks/-/merge_requests/15https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/debs/gnome-clocks/-/merge_requests/16
* choose-mirror
Tagged version 2.111pureos1 and pushed afterwards to GitLab.
* util-linux
Tagged version 2.36.1-8pureos3 and pushed afterwards to GitLab.
* gnome-initial-setup
Merge in MR4, pulling in latest Debian stable version, updating and
preparing PureOS packaging, start a new MR5 which will need so more
testing which I wasn't able to do so far until now.
https://source.puri.sm/pureos/core/gnome-initial-setup/-/merge_requests/4https://source.puri.sm/pureos/core/gnome-initial-setup/-/merge_requests/5
* librem5-dev-tools
Give some more feedback to the still open MR20 from me, unfortunately I
still impossible to get this completely ready.
https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/librem5-dev-tools/-/merge_requests/20
* gnome-desktop
Merge in MR1, further updating PureOS specific packaging resulting in an
new MR2 for getting a new version 3.38.5-3pureos1.
It's the same as for gnome-initial-setup, needs at least some testing
before do some merge and further finalizing packaging.
https://source.puri.sm/pureos/packages/gnome-desktop/-/merge_requests/1https://source.puri.sm/pureos/packages/gnome-desktop/-/merge_requests/2
Again also some more smallish things probably not really worth to mention.
Besides this I've done also some Debian packaging work, so far I've did
hade made some notes to myself I've uploaded new versions for the
following packages to NEW, unstable, stable-security and some backports
queues.
1 django-cors-headers
2 django-graphene
3 django-graphiql-debug-toolbar
4 django-taggit
5 drf-yasg-nonfre
6 graphql-core
7 graphql-relay
8 kicad*
9 libvime
10 mssql-django
11 ngspice
12 pydoctor
13 python-django-modelcluster
14 python-graphene
15 python-ilorest
16 python-tablib
17 social-auth-core
18 thunderbird
19 wcag-contrast-ratio
--
Regards
Carsten Schoenert
[View Less]
Hi!
We have a small vote for the next PureOS codename! I picked all
suggestions that we had so far and added them to a really simple list.
Please, do vote only once per person, but you *can* vote for multiple
options if you want to.
Whatever has a simple majority by next Friday will win the vote
Voting link: https://poll.disroot.org/3rfZurYMKIIzdAv2
Cheers,
Matthias
FYI
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [CFP] Embedded, Mobile and Automotive devroom @FOSDEM2022
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 20:16:54 +0100
From: Krzysztof Opasiak <kopasiak90(a)gmail.com>
To: fosdem(a)lists.fosdem.org, embedded-devroom(a)lists.fosdem.org
This email is a Call For Participation in the Embedded, Mobile and
Automotive Devroom at FOSDEM 2022.
Devroom date: 5th & 6th February in FOSDEM Online Venue
CFP deadline: Monday, 20th December 2021.
Final speaker …
[View More]confirmation on Friday, December 31th 2021.
CFP Introduction
---------------------------
Embedded software is transforming the world, and FOSS embedded software
is leading the way. From automotive to the Internet of Things,
launching rockets, messing with your phone or automating your toaster,
small devices, embedded systems, and automatons are everywhere
Join in and tell the world about your project!
This year FOSDEM is going to be an online event. All talks will need
to be prerecorded and shared with FOSDEM organizers.
Please only propose a talk that you're really able and willing to share.
Topics Sought
------------------------
The embedded devroom seeks topics related to automotive, industrial,
mobile, consumer electronics, autonomous and generally embedded
systems, either from a professional or hobbyist background. Topics
such as operating systems (Linux, free RTOS), hardware platforms (from
microcontrollers to microprocessors, FPGAs) and software stacks are
welcome. Related areas are of course of interest as well and our
definition of "embedded" is elastic.
CFP Schedule And Submission Details
-----------------------------------------------------------
Please submit proposals no later than the 20th of December.
Please use the following URL to submit your talk to FOSDEM 2022
https://penta.fosdem.org/submission/FOSDEM22
and follow the following rules:
* If you do not have an account yet, please create one, if you
have submitted a talk in one of the previous years, please
re-use your old account.
* Select as the Track "Embedded, mobile and automotive devroom"
* Select as the Event Type "Lecture"
* Include a title. (Note that "Subtitle" entry doesn't appear on
all conference documents, so make sure "Title" can stand on its
own without "Subtitle" present.)
* Include an Abstract of about 500 characters and a full description
of any length you wish, but in both fields, please be concise, but
clear and descriptive.
* Indicate whether you seek a 25, or 50 minute slot.
* Use the "Links" sub-area to your past work in the field you'd like
to share.
* Also in the notes field please indicate your timezone so that we can
schedule a convenient timeslot for you.
* Last but not least, make sure you have up to date contact info.
Feel free to send an email to the embedded mailing list should you have
any questions with the conference system.
Subscribe here: https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/embedded-devroom
About the devroom organizers
--------------------------------------------------
The co-organizers of the FOSDEM 2022 Embedded devroom are
(in alphabetical order by surname):
* Walt Miner
* Krzysztof Opasiak
* Thomas Petazzoni
* Chris Simmonds
* Geert Uytterhoeven
_______________________________________________
embedded-devroom mailing list
embedded-devroom(a)lists.fosdem.org
https://lists.fosdem.org/listinfo/embedded-devroom
[View Less]
Hi,
I've taken a look at gnome-software yesterday, originally because the
Package Synchronization Issue Overview is showing a greater difference
between the version in the archive than available in Debian
3.36.0-3pureos1 vs. 3.38.1-1
https://master.pureos.net/sync/landing
Next I was looking at source.p.s to start a deeper look, but there are
two repositories for gnome-software!
https://source.puri.sm/pureos/packages/gnome-softwarehttps://source.puri.sm/pureos/core/gnome-software
But …
[View More]in none of both trees I can find preparations for the current
version 3.36.0-3pureos1 in byzantium.
The first of the two repos seems to be mostly driven by the L5
requirements in the past, the other seems to be modified only by
Matthias by one commit in two different branches.
To decrease confusion I'd like to drop one of both trees or at least
meld them together.
This requires consensus what to do or what state to archive. So I want
to ask how other members see the situation and which way to take.
To me updating the first listed repo seems to cost the smallest amount
of time given we would only need (want?) to add the PureOS delta from
the current version 3.36.0-3pureos1 in the archive.
--
Regards
Carsten Schoenert
[View Less]
Hello,
some pre explanation.
I worked the past week on localechooser in a same way as done before for
cron.
I requested adding the git trees of localechooser and python-apt into
the deb-build-jobs by this MR
https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/deb-build-jobs/-/merge_requests/381
Guido pointed out correctly that the prerequisites aren't fulfilled to
accept this MR.
To not bother especially Guido again and again to call the helper script
'setup-pureos-pkg-repo' for me I'd like to request to get …
[View More]the role
Maintainer for the PureOS namespace on source.p.s..
If I can get a Maintainer permission I'd be able to use the helper
script on the git trees within the PureOS repositories and adjust
branches etc on my own.
The helper script Guido mentioned on several places already can be found on
https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/librem5-dev-tools
If you don't feel comfortable given that role to me we need to find a
workflow how the setup and adjustments on git trees can be done.
Otherwise it's a bit stop and go for me as I need to interrupt my work
constantly.
--
Regards
Carsten Schoenert
[View Less]
Quoting Guido Günther (2021-10-09 17:11:27)
> Hi,
> On Sat, Oct 09, 2021 at 10:25:20AM +0200, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
> [..snip..]
> > > https://source.puri.sm/pureos/packages/lollypop contains no local
> > > feature commits (i.e. no feature changes, only boilerplate changes
> > > to packaging metadata) so does not illustrate well how to best
> > > tackle package upgrades. What it does illustrate is that it
> > > didn't preserve …
[View More]earlier PureOS work - i.e. the work tracked at
> > > https://source.puri.sm/librem5-apps/lollypop
> >
> > That is unfortunately correct. :(
> > I wasn't aware that there was already a lollypop tree until now.
> > Then we need to think about how get that split fixed.
>
> I wasn't aware of
>
> https://source.puri.sm/librem5-apps/lollypop
>
> when importing, sorry.
>
> We can preserve that history in the pureos/packages/lollypop repo need
> be or just leave it as is and use that fork in unlikely case we need
> updates for amber-phone. Both works for me.
That particular work of mine is not important for me that we preserve.
If topic of this conversation is _simplest_ practice then let's just
throw away historic git repos.
I pointed to that historic git repo because a) it was unclear to me what
Carsten wanted to say (he also referenced missing posts by Guido still
unavailable to me¹), and b) I mistakenly focused on finding _best_
practice.
- Jonas
¹ Seems many posts from Guido has reached only cc'ed participants in
discussions, not this list. As a concrete example, this email is a
response to an email from Guido with Message-ID
<YWGxH0nt5AnmfYO9(a)qwark.sigxcpu.org> which I received but does not
appear at
https://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/2021-October/thread.html
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
[View Less]
Hi,
back in 2018 Matthias did a small modification within the cron package
that resulted in forked tree and small different binary package for
cron. Basically the only difference is this patch:
> $ git show c2766e7259b86b32bcecd2d61607eb022fd31310
> commit c2766e7259b86b32bcecd2d61607eb022fd31310
> Author: Matthias Klumpp <matthias(a)tenstral.net>
> Date: Sun Aug 19 20:50:32 2018 +0200
>
> Only suggest, not recommend, an MTA
>
> diff --git a/debian/…
[View More]control b/debian/control
> index 1bd9c3e..e6a6766 100644
> --- a/debian/control
> +++ b/debian/control
> @@ -25,12 +25,11 @@ Depends:
> adduser,
> lsb-base (>= 3.0-10),
> libpam-runtime (>= 1.0.1-11)
> -Recommends:
> - exim4 | postfix | mail-transport-agent
> Suggests:
> anacron (>=2.0-1),
> logrotate,
> - checksecurity
> + checksecurity,
> + exim4 | postfix | mail-transport-agent
> Breaks:
> dpkg (<< 1.15.4)
> Provides: cron-daemon
In between times the packaging in Debian has been changed on this part.
> $ git show f27b9ccdb2046fe3fbb1eef6d7801d4b3d6900c7
> commit f27b9ccdb2046fe3fbb1eef6d7801d4b3d6900c7
> Author: Christian Kastner <ckk(a)debian.org>
> Date: Tue Feb 19 21:46:16 2019 +0100
>
> Switch cron MTA Recommends to default-mta | mail-transport-agent
>
> Recommend these virtual packages rather than specific MTAs.
>
> diff --git a/debian/control b/debian/control
> index fc59f49..609e84f 100644
> --- a/debian/control
> +++ b/debian/control
> @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ Depends:
> lsb-base (>= 3.0-10),
> libpam-runtime (>= 1.0.1-11)
> Recommends:
> - exim4 | postfix | mail-transport-agent
> + default-mta | mail-transport-agent
> Suggests:
> anacron (>= 2.0-1),
> logrotate,
Is this change worth to update the current cron package in byzantium or
could the derived package instead get dropped?
(It's not completely clear to me why the mta part was moved to Suggests.)
--
Regards
Carsten Schoenert
[View Less]