Re: [DNG] Google abandons UEFI in Chromebooks

[Rick Moen]

I wrote:

> As it happens, as I mentioned, I just recently bought (to play with)  a
> reconditioned Zotac CI321 w/4GB RAM and a 64GB SSD for US $125 with 1
> year warranty from Zotac after John Franklin mentioned the Zotac
> C-series here.  (TY, John!)  It has the Intel ME and Intel FSM problems,
> too.
[...]
> The FSP is a separate problem (for both the Purism laptops and my
> little toy Zotac), and I can't say much about more about that.

I'll do that now.  

Long ago, I had a Lucent Silver Wavelan PCMCIA 802.11b wireless card for
my laptops.  At the time, this was the most universally best supported
wireless chipset ever, using the orinoco_cs driver starting with the
2.4.3 Linux kernel.  Like all NICs of that generation, the card had a
built-in ROM that hooked into hardware initialisation.

Newer cards (and motherboard chipsets) have often had hauntingly similar
functionality to my old 802.11b card, but relegated the ROM
initialisation to a binary-only firmware BLOB that must be hurled into
RAM during hardware recognition -- a change made, as far as I can tell,
just to save a trivial amount of money on ROM costs.  It occurred to me
that the functionality of the new BLOBs and of my old Lucent card's ROM
contents was the same.  In a few cases, the new BLOBs might even be
exactly the same code, just dd'd to a file from what was formerly burned
into a ROM.

I sometimes have Richard Stallman as a house guest, and I don't _think_ 
I've yet raised this with him, but I keep intending to.  So, here's my
attempt to imagine the conversation:

RM:  Here's my point:  Why are the firmware BLOBs a software freedom
 issue, and the Lucent ROM was not?

RMS:  We at FSF seek freedom to modify in all general-use software, and
the BLOBs, if they were freed, could give developers ability to
improve them, the ability to ensure that they are
freedom-protecting, and the ability to adapt that code to other
purposes for everyone's benefit.

RM:  Sure, but why wasn't that by the same token an issue for the 
Lucent ROM code?  And, for that matter, why not CPU microcode?

RMS:  Because those are hardware, and you can't change them.  Maybe
one day we'll have full visibility into microcode, but one fight
at a time.

RM:  Fair enough, but are you saying that FSF would have no problem
with BLOB firmware images if they get burned into ROMs?  I'm
not clear on why that would matter.  It's the same code doing
the same functionality.  Also, I'm not sure the ROM code in
a Lucent Silver could not be changed.  Often, these aren't 
classic burn-once ROMs but rather EEPROMs.

RMS:  [here, I run out of imagination]

The Stallman in my head _might_ have countered that, well, the frontiers
of free software (I almost said 'open source') change over time
depending on what is feasible.  Back then, hardware init 'feature' ROMs
were black boxes and we couldn't reasonably dream of changing that.
Now, we may have many obstacles, but we can aspire.

Angling back to the Intel Firmware Support Package:  In 1997, it never
would have even occurred to you to object to the (then-current analogue
of the) Intel FSM as a free software issue, because you'd just call it
'the feature ROMs', and it was just an unavoidable black-box feature of
your computer, like the CPU microcode.  Twenty years later, a bunch of
people see that as an intolerable affront to freedom-respecting hardware
design, even though nothing has actually changed.

But if that's not a grey area, then I don't know my greyscales.

(In fairness, Libreboot Project clarifies on
https://libreboot.org/faq.html#intel that the FSP handles System
Management Mode, which raises a genuine security concern, in addition to
doing 1997-style hardware initialisation.  To quote my favourite line
from 'The West Wing', 'Ah, the rare valid point.')

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Google abandons UEFI in Chromebooks

[taii...@gmx.com]

On 11/02/2017 09:47 PM, Alessandro Selli wrote:


   Yes, I know, they failed disabling ME and they stopped even trying.

Their website/marketing says that it is "disabled" when it isn't.

   Purism
has gone farther than anyone though possible just two years ago
They didn't make ME_cleaner or contribute to its development at all FYI, 
there isn't anything special about their laptops that justifies the $2K 
price tag
If one insists on a new intel laptop and doesn't mind a blobbed/ME'd 
coreboot there are a variety of much less expensive options that support 
me cleaner.

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Google abandons UEFI in Chromebooks

[taii...@gmx.com]

In the interest of not starting a big argument again this will by my 
last reply on this thread.


On 11/02/2017 01:14 PM, Alessandro Selli wrote:


   They are fully worth it.
Certainly not for the price they are charging, for $2K one could buy 5 
Lenovo G505S laptops which are owner controlled with no ME/PSP, an open 
source init process (no FSP) or hardware code signing enforcement.

«the LibreM contains a proprietary BIOS»

   Wrong.  I already wrote about it but I see your pathological hate for
anything other than Talos/IBM is just too strong, facts cannot stop you from
spreading lies:
I don't like IBM, but I accept that POWER is the best option and their 
marketing of it is honest.
I don't like purism and will never support them until they change their 
marketing to be actually honest and stop pretending that they can make 
free an intel CPU some vague time in the future.

https://puri.sm/faq/

Technical & Advanced
Can I buy a Librem with a proprietary BIOS/UEFI?

No. We ship with the free software firmware coreboot. We don’t ship Librem 13
or Librem 15 with any proprietary BIOS/UEFI.
It isn't libre and it isn't free software as the hardware and memory 
init process is entirely done by Intel's FSP binary blob.

They call their laptops the "LibreM" - what is libre about them?

Fail to include the ME firmware binary in the firmware and your purism 
laptop will shut down in 30 minutes "disabled"

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Google abandons UEFI in Chromebooks

[zap]

>> Coreboot does load blobs for certain devices, so it shouldn't be any
>> surprise that coreboot supports librem.
>   They did not lie about this.
Hmm... Doesn't it seem odd though that they call themselves purism and
haven't fully removed the intel ME stuff...?

I dunno, it just seems fishy to me. IF you really think I am being
judgmental, ask the people on the trisquel forums... they go even
further to say that they are lying scum bags who only have interest in
money and no interest in freedom.

Me personally? Well I think they have some shady dealings but I do hope
someday they get honest about some of the stuff they hid. If they do
that, and clean up their act and succeed in cleaning everything up, then
I will support them easily.

>
> Alessandro
> ___
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@lists.dyne.org
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Google abandons UEFI in Chromebooks

[Rick Moen]

Quoting zap (calmst...@posteo.de):

> Very well then,
> https://libreboot.org/faq.html#will-the-purism-laptops-be-supported
> 
> that is one perfect example. If it were possible, I think libreboot
> would have said something by now about the intel_me cleaner making it
> possible.

This is significant and worthy of note, but please be careful to not
over-read.  Libreboot Project take the sensible stance that it is best
to avoid hardware containing Intel ME, including the Purism laptops,
because of (1) Intel ME, and (2) the Intel Firmware Support Package
(FSP) that coreboot uses to handles all hardware initialisation,
including memory and CPU initialisation.  (Among other things, Libreboot
Project point out that FSP sets up System Management Mode, which is a
known-problematic system layer underlying the regular OS level).

As it happens, as I mentioned, I just recently bought (to play with)  a
reconditioned Zotac CI321 w/4GB RAM and a 64GB SSD for US $125 with 1
year warranty from Zotac after John Franklin mentioned the Zotac
C-series here.  (TY, John!)  It has the Intel ME and Intel FSM problems,
too.

If I understand correctly, it would be self-defeating to totally disable
the Intel ME on hardware that uses it -- because the ME is instrumental
in initialising the hardware for use.  The best possible outcome under
the circumstances is to be able to programmatically disable the ME as
part of boot-up, as can be done at least for ME version 11 using the
technique discovered by Positive Technologies.
http://blog.ptsecurity.com/2017/08/disabling-intel-me.html
Intel Corp. have confirmed that this technique does disable ME version
11.  Call me excessively trusting if you will, but I believe them.  And
FWIW I do _not_ believe the people thinking ME is a plot to
security-compromise our computers.  It's a (regrettable) technology
intended to facilitate OOB management.  The rationale makes perfect
sense, even if the unintended side-effects are woeful.)

I think, if you credit Purism with a modicum of good will, you might
concede that an Intel ME (version 11) that gets programmatically lobotomised
immediately upon boot using the Positive Technologies (which I hope and
expect Purism are using) is as close to no Intel ME as makes no
difference.

The FSP is a separate problem (for both the Purism laptops and my
little toy Zotac), and I can't say much about more about that.


My own semi-considered opinion:  Purism have been repeatedly guilty of
the, on balance, venial and rather common sin of shading the truth just
a bit.  Public relations.  They may not be unstained saints of the
Church of Free Software, but then, who is?

Shades of grey.  We have 'em.

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Google abandons UEFI in Chromebooks

[Alessandro Selli]

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 at 20:46:58 -0400
zap  wrote:

> On 11/02/2017 07:35 PM, Alessandro Selli wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 at 15:03:36 -0400
>> zap  wrote:
>>  
   Prove it.

 https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disable-intel-management-engine/
   
>>> Something tells me you won't accept any other answer except your own, so
>>> I will pass.  
>>   I take any verifiable fact as proof.  Don't duck away blaming the
>> others of your cowardice.  
> Very well then,
> https://libreboot.org/faq.html#will-the-purism-laptops-be-supported
>
> that is one perfect example.

  It isn't, as, AFAIK, purism didn't advertise it's laptops as running on
libreboot, so they did not lie.

> If it were possible, I think libreboot
> would have said something by now about the intel_me cleaner making it
> possible.

  Where did you read anything about intel_me cleaner in
https://puri.sm/posts/deep-dive-into-intel-me-disablement/ ?  You're stuck
with old news.

> Another thing, if you want to know if is truly possible to support
> purism try opening a pull request on
> https://notabug.org/libreboot/libreboot/pulls.
>
> I guarantee Leah will specify how impossible it is.

  Yes, I know, they failed disabling ME and they stopped even trying.  Purism
has gone farther than anyone though possible just two years ago, and they are
not saying ME is 100% removed:

https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disable-intel-management-engine/

“Purism, in the long-term pursuit of liberating hardware at the lowest
levels, still has more work to do. Removing the management engine entirely is
the next step beyond just disabling it. Coreboot also includes another
binary, the Intel FSP, a less worrisome but still important binary to
liberate, incorporating a free vBIOS is another step Purism plans to take.
The road to a completely free system on current Intel CPUs is not over, but
the largest step of disabling the Management Engine is arguably the largest
milestone to cross.” says Youness Alaoui, Hardware Enablement Developer at
Purism.

> Coreboot does load blobs for certain devices, so it shouldn't be any
> surprise that coreboot supports librem.

  They did not lie about this.


Alessandro
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Google abandons UEFI in Chromebooks

[zap]

On 11/02/2017 08:28 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
> I wrote:
>
>> Coreboot itself is free software but by design hosts proprietary
>> plugins.  In that regard, it differs from its militantly free software
>> fork libreboot, which of course in consequence supports much less
>> software.
>   
>
> I meant hardware.
>
> And I'd still appreciate it if Alessandro would please calm down.
+1 Agreed.
>
> ___
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@lists.dyne.org
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Google abandons UEFI in Chromebooks

[zap]

On 11/02/2017 07:35 PM, Alessandro Selli wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 at 15:03:36 -0400
> zap  wrote:
>
>>>   Prove it.
>>>
>>> https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disable-intel-management-engine/
>> Something tells me you won't accept any other answer except your own, so
>> I will pass.
>   I take any verifiable fact as proof.  Don't duck away blaming the others of
> your cowardice.
Very well then,
https://libreboot.org/faq.html#will-the-purism-laptops-be-supported

that is one perfect example. If it were possible, I think libreboot
would have said something by now about the intel_me cleaner making it
possible.

Another thing, if you want to know if is truly possible to support
purism try opening a pull request on
https://notabug.org/libreboot/libreboot/pulls.

I guarantee Leah will specify how impossible it is.

Coreboot does load blobs for certain devices, so it shouldn't be any
surprise that coreboot supports librem.

If it can be used on libreboot that is different and I will gladly
recommend it to everyone and anyone.

Even despite the bad press stuff, etc,
>
>
> Alessandro
> ___
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@lists.dyne.org
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Google abandons UEFI in Chromebooks

[Rick Moen]

I wrote:

> Coreboot itself is free software but by design hosts proprietary
> plugins.  In that regard, it differs from its militantly free software
> fork libreboot, which of course in consequence supports much less
> software.
  

I meant hardware.

And I'd still appreciate it if Alessandro would please calm down.

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Google abandons UEFI in Chromebooks

[Alessandro Selli]

On Thu, 2 Nov 2017 at 15:03:36 -0400
zap  wrote:

> 
> >   Prove it.
> >
> > https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disable-intel-management-engine/
> Something tells me you won't accept any other answer except your own, so
> I will pass.

  I take any verifiable fact as proof.  Don't duck away blaming the others of
your cowardice.


Alessandro
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Google abandons UEFI in Chromebooks

[zap]

>   Prove it.
>
> https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disable-intel-management-engine/
Something tells me you won't accept any other answer except your own, so
I will pass.
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Google abandons UEFI in Chromebooks

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Alessandro Selli (alessandrose...@linux.com):

> https://puri.sm/faq/
> 
> Technical & Advanced
> Can I buy a Librem with a proprietary BIOS/UEFI?
> 
> No. We ship with the free software firmware coreboot. We don’t ship Librem 13
> or Librem 15 with any proprietary BIOS/UEFI.

(Note:  This is an ambiguous situation, where Purism are attempting 
to do the right thing and doing laudable work concerning among other
things the Intel ME issue.  I'm making no accusations.  I'm dismayed
by needless hostility erupting in this thread, and would appreciate if
people calmed down.)

Coreboot itself is free software but by design hosts proprietary
plugins.  In that regard, it differs from its militantly free software
fork libreboot, which of course in consequence supports much less
software.

Purism stating that the ship with the free software firmware coreboot
thus does not totally answer the question posed in the FAQ.  If Purism
wished, it could elaborate to state whether or not proprietary Intel
firmware BLOB must be loaded by coreboot to initialise the Librem 15's
chipsets.  The need to do so is sadly common, hence why use of coreboot
is much more common than that of Libreboot.

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Google abandons UEFI in Chromebooks

[Alessandro Selli]

On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 23:30:45 -0400
zap  wrote:

> 
>>> You might consider the Purism laptops, one of which has a detachable
>>> keyboard.  https://puri.sm/products/
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3anjgm/on_the_librem_laptop_purism_doesnt_believe_in/
>>
>> They aren't worth it.
> Yep mhm, they are deliberately lying too people saying they have the
> intel me 100% disabled.

  Prove it.

https://puri.sm/posts/purism-librem-laptops-completely-disable-intel-management-engine/


October 19, 2017
Purism Librem Laptops Completely Disable Intel’s Management Engine

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif., October 19, 2017 — Purism’s Librem Laptops, running
coreboot, are now available with the Intel Management Engine completely and
verifiably disabled.

https://puri.sm/posts/deep-dive-into-intel-me-disablement/


October 19, 2017
Deep dive into Intel Management Engine disablement

Starting today, our second generation of laptops (based on the 6th gen Intel
Skylake platform) will now come with the Intel Management Engine neutralized
and disabled by default. Users who already received their orders can also
update their flash to disable the ME on their machines.

In this post, I will dig deeper and explain in more details what this means
exactly, and why it wasn’t done before today for the laptops that were
shipping this spring and summer.


Alessandro
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Redhat CEO answers questions

[golinux]

On 2017-11-02 10:39, Narcis Garcia wrote:




Because, any other jokes or ultra-developed threads are just off-topic
and making subscribers to unsubscribe some day.
___



Yes, these long useless threads where everyone tries to have the last 
word push people away from this list. We've probably all been guilty of 
it at some time or another but that doesn't make it acceptable.  If you 
want to ramble on like that, please just take it to #debianfork.


golinux
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Redhat CEO answers questions

[Narcis Garcia]

El 02/11/17 a les 14:58, zap ha escrit:
> 
>> Please no political jokes. Not everyone shares the same political opinion 
>> and the joke may be offensive to some.
> 
> I don't see why, but if it will keep peace then I will do so. But I wish
> to know what you mean by political jokes... free software has a
> political agenda too after all.
> 
> so I guess I will ask this, do you mean just political candidates/people
> in power?

In my humble opinion, better to mean any political out of this scope:
Devuan (includes FOSS) and Systemd as a particular case.

Because, any other jokes or ultra-developed threads are just off-topic
and making subscribers to unsubscribe some day.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Redhat CEO answers questions

[m712]

I propose ``alt.sysadmin.rehab''.

On November 2, 2017 5:46:50 PM GMT+03:00, Jamey Fletcher  wrote:
>>> systemd is a reality, and making sad or smart jokes about it does
>not
>>> make it more palatable, or less of a threat.
>
>> yep, you are right systemd is a reality, I just needed to vent
>somehow.
>> and making my jokes is one way of doing so...
>
>Do we need to start alt.systemdadmin.recovery?
>
>___
>Dng mailing list
>Dng@lists.dyne.org
>https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

--- :^) --- :^) --- :^) --- :^) --- :^) --- :^) --- :^) --- :^) ---
https://nextchan.org - https://gitgud.io/m712/blazechan
I am awake between 7AM-12AM UTC, hit me up if something's wrong

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Redhat CEO answers questions

[Jamey Fletcher]

>> systemd is a reality, and making sad or smart jokes about it does not
>> make it more palatable, or less of a threat.

> yep, you are right systemd is a reality, I just needed to vent somehow.
> and making my jokes is one way of doing so...

Do we need to start alt.systemdadmin.recovery?

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Redhat CEO answers questions

[zap]

> Please no political jokes. Not everyone shares the same political opinion and 
> the joke may be offensive to some.

I don't see why, but if it will keep peace then I will do so. But I wish
to know what you mean by political jokes... free software has a
political agenda too after all.

so I guess I will ask this, do you mean just political candidates/people
in power?

> Dng mailing list
> Dng@lists.dyne.org
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Redhat CEO answers questions

[m712]

On November 1, 2017 5:12:53 PM GMT+03:00, zap  wrote:
>Also another slogan for systemd: "*The**Donald Trump**of **Init*!"
Please no political jokes. Not everyone shares the same political opinion and 
the joke may be offensive to some.
--- :^) --- :^) --- :^) --- :^) --- :^) --- :^) --- :^) --- :^) ---
https://nextchan.org - https://gitgud.io/m712/blazechan
I am awake between 7AM-12AM UTC, hit me up if something's wrong

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Runit for Devuan: was Debian testing drop redis

[Olaf Meeuwissen]

Hi,

m712 writes:

> On October 28, 2017 11:22:49 AM GMT+03:00, Rick Moen  
> wrote:
>>(But sure, fixing the runit-init package
>>would be a nice-to-have.)
> I have a proposal for this. Basically, have an install script which does 
> something like this (I'm not familiar with the Debian packaging scripts so 
> assume it's sh):

Install scripts should not assume anything wrt the shell they're using
when OR explicitly state what shell they expect (and where necessary add
an appropriate Pre-Depends).  In practice, it's easier to fix your
install script to be /bin/sh compatible.

On Debian/Devuan, /bin/sh defaults to dash.

> # if upgrading, this doesn't run
> if [ "$(pgrep runit -o)" != "1" ]; then
>   mv -f /sbin/shutdown{,.old}
>   mv -f /sbin/reboot{,.old}

Those are bashisms and won't work with dash

  olaf@quark:~$ /bin/sh
  $ mv test{,.new}
  mv: missing destination file operand after ‘test{,.new}’
  Try 'mv --help' for more information.

So, stop trying to be smart ;-) and just say

  mv -f /sbin/shutdown /sbin/shutdown.old
  mv -f /sbin/reboot /sbin/reboot.old

or

  for f in /sbin/shutdown /sbin/reboot; do
mv -f $f $f.old
  done

or something.

Moreover, I think something like this would be better handled using
Debian's alternatives mechanism.  See `man update-alternatives` for
details.

Hope this helps,
--
Olaf Meeuwissen, LPIC-2FSF Associate Member since 2004-01-27
 GnuPG key: F84A2DD9/B3C0 2F47 EA19 64F4 9F13  F43E B8A4 A88A F84A 2DD9
 Support Free Softwarehttps://my.fsf.org/donate
 Join the Free Software Foundation  https://my.fsf.org/join
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] Thunderbird broken dependencies in security update

[KatolaZ]

On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 07:12:18AM +0100, J. Fahrner wrote:
> Hi,
> there is a Thunderbird security update available in stable-security, which
> updates Thunderbird from version 45 to 52. The thunderbird-l10n-* packages
> still require version 45.
> 
> apt-get output:
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  thunderbird-l10n-de : Depends: thunderbird (< 1:45.8.0-3~deb8u1.1~) but
> 1:52.4.0-1~deb8u1 is to be installed
> E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
> 

This means that they (upstream, Debian) have to put the correct
version of thunderbird-l10n-*...

HND

KatolaZ

-- 
[ ~.,_  Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - Devuan -- Freaknet Medialab  ]  
[ "+.  katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it  ]
[   @)   http://kalos.mine.nu ---  Devuan GNU + Linux User  ]
[ @@)  http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia --  GPG: 0B5F062F  ] 
[ (@@@)  Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ  ]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] libvirt virt-manager permissions ?

[Florian Zieboll]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:40:06 +1100
Fulano Diego Perez  wrote:

> anybody have advice about getting virt-manager working ?
> 
> what are required perms for qcows ?
> 
> always get similar errors on any debian distro except subgraph which
> always works without changing perms, currently 600 root:root
> 
> i have apparmor installed


Hi,

I don't know about apparmor, just that my qemu/kvm runs any root-owned
qcow2 images with 0600 permissions.

libre Grüße,

Florian
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

Re: [DNG] armhf support?

[Florian Zieboll]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 08:50:12 +0300
m712  wrote:

> I want to install Debian Jessie via Linux Deploy on my Android device
> (as a chroot), then migrate it to Devuan Jessie then ASCII. What's
> the status on armhf architecture on Devuan? Anyone use it on an ARM
> device?

my raspi 2b is running fine with devuan jessie/armhf.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

[DNG] Redhat CEO answers questions

[Edward Bartolo]

Although I am pro-choice regarding software, I am one who actually
tried to use systemd on a few occasions. However, I was every time
disappointed by its performance. After that, I had to revert back to
another init completely removing it in the process.

This machine has Devuan ASCII installed which runs very
satisfactorily, except smoulderfox, a.k.a firefox, which occasionally
misbehaves.
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

[DNG] Thunderbird broken dependencies in security update

[J. Fahrner]

Hi,
there is a Thunderbird security update available in stable-security, 
which updates Thunderbird from version 45 to 52. The thunderbird-l10n-* 
packages still require version 45.


apt-get output:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 thunderbird-l10n-de : Depends: thunderbird (< 1:45.8.0-3~deb8u1.1~) but 
1:52.4.0-1~deb8u1 is to be installed

E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.

Jochen


___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng