MX Linux Forum

I'd just guess a well understood package of a browser with reduced data spreading should tend to increase the crowd that uses it.
(But not sure if librewolf could become that. Re-packaging their binary in lieu of clean patchsets does not seem to be of the better suggestions.)

And it looks somehow ...

Sure, one can only do so much.

Notably, though, that may not include simply packaging a patched firefox. The ancestor project to package an easily accessible "unmozillarized-firefox" (as with chromium) looks like having a history of going silent in a strange way.

Looks like there are some specific ...

What I thought of was, if you would have found some specifics like a wrong packaging locations etc., something like that could be filed.

The advantage (and only objective) of this project I think is to just readily apply sensible privacy patches that otherwise need a lot of manual patching and ...

I personally am not interested in fussing around anymore with trying to build this mess of a package. The developer needs to debianize it.


Thanks for your assessment. It's a clear hint, and a mess is a warning sign if it's not addressed.

Did you have the chance to provide some details upstream ...

Uh, just read that the new ubuntu release just indiscriminately closed down the home directories completely. instead of improving the /home filesystem usability, and to improve the default permission situation with it.

Could be a good opportunity to improve MX Linux by putting the user private ...

Some drawbacks of a third- or fourth-(appstore)party flatpack are the delayed security-updates of bundled dependencies, and problems with using the install directory for customizing system wide defaults.

Actually, the wiki says pam_umask supports a "usergroups" option to automatically only widen the default umask for users with a user-private-group. So, no need to statically set a widened 002 umask, to support a brushed-up /home data directory tree.

And with current upstream's pam_umask versions ...

In other words, putting Debian's default user-private-groups to good use, allows "managing file permissions" to become a non-issue for the users (while at the same time bringing privacy as well as super easy collaboration on shared files to all users).

Strange, my first reply ended up in the forum above your question Stuart_M . Maybe I opened the editor just before your message appeared, or something. (ok, seems to be just the edit window that lists older posts below)

Anyway, concerning a proper solution for this forum thread:

With each user ...

Setting the umask alone, and even more though to a restrictive value that you were considerng, isn't very useful for multi-user sytems, though.

The linked wiki page and script explains how to take advantage of the fact that the user's actual permissions are a combination of the permissions of the ...