Hmm... I can't reproduce this either and looking at https://repo.pureos.net/pureos/dists/green/InRelease all dates are correct.

Well....

Version check failed:
Your upload included the source package librem5-devkit-tools, version 0.0.2,
however landing already has version 0.0.2.
Uploads to landing must have a higher version than present in landing.

Looks like this version is already in (I see it in all suites):

librem5-devkit-tools | 0.0.2         | green      | source
librem5-devkit-tools | 0.0.2         | landing    | source
librem5-devkit-tools | 0.0.2         | purple     | source

@guido You're absolutely right, sorry - I was confusing the .dsc and .changes files somehow (the former already has all the necessary information).
Apparently the architecture in your previous changes file was not (only) set to source, and therefore a non-source upload was suumed, which does required the Binary field.
Anyway, to make some progress on this, can you please attempt another upload? I am curious at what dak has to say to that, and if it gets rejected again, I can debug the issue further looking directly into dak to determine why it things the package is unsuitable.

You can also maybe circumvent the issue by doing a binary upload, but it would actually be useful to know what went wrong here.

Ok, weird - maybe just build it again and see what happens (the dpkg version in the chroot env also needs to be high enough).

Very strange... Do you happen to have the package built with dpkg << 1.19.3?
You need at least that version to generate a valid package.

Done - the package was actually already synced, I just forgot to close this issue.
The new changes were stuck in testing though, due to a dependency issue, which is now fixed as well (so expect the package to become available soon).

@Gnutella If it's just changes like a different slideshow, icon, colors and logo image then yes, that's possible - I already did that once.
That said, the GNOME flavor is currently the focus of development, the Plasma flavor is less well maintained (so focusing on GNOME as long as it doesn't completely break the Plasma installations would also be fair).

Package is updated in landing and will soon migrate to green.

I wondered about that as well, turns out the package priority changed from optional to important.
I adjusted the override now, so the package can be removed again and should no longer be present in default installations.

This is now a new issue, caused by a change in lsb-release which was switched to exclusively read /etc/os-release and started to capitalize the distribution-ID, which works for Debian, but not for PureOS.
I submitted a patch upstream: https://salsa.debian.org/debian/lsb/merge_requests/1

This has been fixed for a while now, can you try again with the latest PureOS Plasma image (>> 2019-05-04)?

This is fixed in gnome-control-center 3.30.3-1pureos1. After you installed this version, desktop-base can be removed (and ideally will be autoremoved).
Since PureOS *still* doesn't have any proper logo, I just reset the logo to the default GNOME one.

Jup, reason being that the displaymanager isn't configured. This was once disabled on purpose, I just don't remember why, unfortunately.
I re-enabled the feature, the next live image should have it if there aren't any drawbacks to having it (I can't see any issues, the only potential clash would have been with the OEM installer, but we don't run the module there anyway).

This is because gnome-control-center suddenly started to pull in desktop-base.
I'll look into this.

This is fixed in python-apt >= 1.8.4pureos1 - please verify that this works for you. The new version should reach the green channel in a few days.

Hmm... This is the last changelog entry for python-apt:

python-apt (1.8.1pureos1) green; urgency=medium

Thank you for the quick review & validation! :-)

This isn't actually a high priority issue, as it's only a visual/terminology thing. Will need input from the marketing team though, I think we canonically only call PureOS "PureOS" and not mention Linux (internally, GNU/Linux is used for PureOS though, so this may need to be changed).

This is resolved starting with the 2019-05-01 image builds.
Thanks for reporting this issue!
Since the installer changes are extensive this time, it would be awesome if you could test the new image and verify that the issue is gone. New images will become available on https://downloads.puri.sm/live/gnome/2019-05-01/ shortly.

Eww, I don't think I have addressed this yet. Thanks for the issue report!

emacs25 seems to only exist as a transitional binary package to emacs-gtk in PureOS:

emacs25    | 25.2+1-6+b2   | landing    | arm64
emacs25    | 25.2+1-6+b3   | landing    | amd64
emacs25    | 1:26.1+1-3.2  | green      | all
emacs25    | 1:26.1+1-3.2  | landing    | all
emacs25    | 1:26.1+1-3.2  | purple     | all

There appears to be some cruft in landing, but that has a lower version number so shouldn't be easily installable.
Are you sure this is still an issue?

I can reproduce this here. The timezone shouldn't actually cause any problems here, yet the Release file was apparently signed and piblished with a timestamp in the future to your system. Very strange. There is no unusual behavior going on in the archive as far as I can see.

The database connection got a bit messed up due to parts of the infrastructure rebooting.
Should all work again now (and soon even recover better from issues like this when the new software is in place).

librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_source.changes: misses mandatory field Binary
How was this source package built exactly? The Binary field needs to be present in .changes file in order to be processed.

This is not a bug in the archive. Source-only uploads are allowed, but the .changes file of this package apparently misses the mandatory Binary field and is therefore rejected. Not sure what caused this though, there might be an issue in the packages' build process somewhere.
See https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-binary for more info on the missing field.

Attempting a sync, seeing it fail and then needing to do a manual rebuild is not efficient and can not be reliably automated. Attempting a sync which works but has a decent chance of introducing breakage which can be avoided by a rebuild is not wise.
By always rebuilding packages synced from foreign suites we get a 100% automatable process that saves human work and avoids the introduction of errors due to binaries being built in the wrong environment, even if they are rare.

@guido The package doesn't exist in our repositories anywhere, and I could fine no trace of it ever being uploaded. What's its source package name? Can you maybe just upload the package again?

Can you elaborate on what kind of "subtle incompatibilities" you consider rendering it "definitively not a smart idea" to let Debian unstable packages into PureOS?

Looks like I somehow always ignored those issues when processing bugs, sorry for that!

I can do it, unless you are faster with it - it's a really trivial upload anyway :-)

Can you check if this is still an issue? There have been lots of changes on the locale handling in the PureOS initial setup and installer.

FTR, this goes together with https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/9864 where I am still waiting on feedback.
The current situation with localed on Debian is really suboptimal.

FTR, the reason for blocking nvidia-settings was "References non-free NVIDIA driver".
Package is removed from blacklist now.

Yikes, looks like this issue fell through the cracks completely, sorry for that.

2019-03-24 07:27:13 - INFO: Imported 'mate-sensors-applet_1.20.3-1.dsc' to 'landing/main'.
2019-03-24 07:28:21 - INFO: Imported 'mate-sensors-applet-common_1.20.3-1_all.deb' to 'landing/main'.
2019-03-24 07:28:22 - INFO: Imported 'mate-sensors-applet_1.20.3-1_amd64.deb libmate-sensors-applet-plugin-dev_1.20.3-1_amd64.deb mate-sensors-applet-common_1.20.3-1_all.deb mate-sensors-applet-nvidia_1.20.3-1_amd64.deb libmate-sensors-applet-plugin0_1.20.3-1_amd64.deb' to 'landing/main'.
2019-03-24 07:28:24 - INFO: Imported 'libmate-sensors-applet-plugin-dev_1.20.3-1_arm64.deb mate-sensors-applet-common_1.20.3-1_all.deb libmate-sensors-applet-plugin0_1.20.3-1_arm64.deb mate-sensors-applet_1.20.3-1_arm64.deb' to 'landing/main'.

@jeremiah.foster The data on this URL lists which packages are in certain seeds and why. Some might be explicitly requested, while others are implicitly added via dependencies of packages that were not explicitly requested to be in the default set.
A "standard" PureOS installation consists of the "minimal", "standard" and a desktop seed (e.g. "gnome"), while the desktop seed is itself comprised of a common platform seed ("desktop-common") combined with a desktop specific one ("gnome" or "plasma").
So, if you want to know what is explicitly added to the GNOME flavor of PureOS, https://master.pureos.net/raw/germinate/pureos.green/gnome.seedtext could be interesting, while tables like https://master.pureos.net/raw/germinate/pureos.green/gnome also contain implicitly added stuff and sizes.

Needs a fake upload as the PureOS version is higher than the one in Debian.

Btw, gksu will not work at all on Wayland as wayland does not allow GUI apps to be run as root without some reconfiguration (which intentionally isn't done), and on Xorg I guess it's just broken because nobody looks at its code anymore.
So, I think we should just close this bug.

@jonas.smedegaard Apparently gksu wasn't auto-removed from PureOS because sbackup had a dependency on it. That package itself is cruft though, so I just dropped both from the archive.
Interestingly, sbackup was not considered for autoremoval in PureOS, I will have to take a closer look at why that happened later (my guess is that it has something to do with the package being NMU'ed and building only arch:all binary packages).

Syncing from unstable is just flipping a switch. But we need to know if we *want* to do that. Unstable won't get many package changes during the freeze period either.
Autosyncing with experimental is a terrible idea, because experimental packages may just get deleted without ever reaching unstable. There is also a lot of broken stuff in there which we really don't want in PureOS (experimental is really just a playground with zero QA happening).
So, stuff from experimental should only ever be synced manually and if there is a good reason for doing so.

Grrr, this means a distro patch to python-qpt got reverted in PureOS somehow.
I will have a look, thanks for the direct bug assignment!

@jeremiah.foster Kodi was added on request of your predecessor because the initial PureOS had it and PureOS was supposed to be "complete" (including a mediacenter).
IMHO we don't actually need it since people can easily install missing pieces via GNOME Software.

Just to elaborate on that: The pureos-*installer executables are either compatibility scripts or helper scripts that change installer configuration to the OEM settings. All of them eventually will launch Calamares.

4TB disks/partitions can not be supported, unless we switch from BIOS to UEFI with GPT support, or adding GPT support to the Librem's BIOS by other means.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GUID_Partition_Table

@jeremiah.foster Currently I manually trigger builds by running a command on the archive server. I could likely give you access to that with permission of the sysadmins. Since the automated builds might be very slow though and the system will override the previous image in case there is more than one image build on the same day, I think that you might be happier with a manual image build.

@chris.lamb Ah, so you just want Git commit updates? That's a way easier thing to do, I assumed you wanted notifications about any archive changes and bugtracker changes.

@chris.lamb For the Laniakea changes, I now put my own status-tracking document into the repository, so it is more obvious on why making such a change takes so long: https://github.com/lkorigin/laniakea/blob/master/docs/porting-status.md#status
I won't extend the existing codebase much (except for bugfixes) and instead just work on the new component versions for now, which unfortunately means very slow progress for a while.
As for the room itself, I can't comment on that, that's sysadmin business.

@jeremiah.foster There isn't a formal testing process. I check whether the system boots, installs and runs through the initial setup and the initial experience looks okay. Others do that as well on different hardware, and if nobody reports any major issues, the image is good to go.
If there was a particular change on the installer or initial setup that might have broken something, I will look at that change in more detail to see if really everything works as expected.
But that's about it, nothing fancy (or even structured) is currently happening.

Ehhh... What?
The latest release on https://downloads.pureos.net/ is the current one, and once it has been tested the released one (which should happen very quickly, ideally). If a release is considered broken, it is either removed or a more recent one is built.
Each and every image build is accompanied by a .packages files which lists the contained packages and their versions in details. See https://downloads.pureos.net/live/gnome/2019-02-10/pureos-8.0-gnome-live_20190210-amd64.packages for example.
There are also detailed file listings of stuff included in the installation images, as well as a build log and checksums (the former of which also contains all information on package versions).

At the moment we deliberately don't point the downloads page just to the "latest" image, because it makes sense to do at least some basic testing before throwing out an image as default download. And in that case, the page may just as well point at the latest image.

Did you reboot after you upraded the system?

@chris.lamb Odd, I didn't get an email for your reply to this ticket...
Anyway, my message in the chat was just that I wouldn't be able to work on it before/at FOSDEM, if there was any noteworthy thing I would have updated the ticket.
On the good side though, the changes are in green since this Saturday/Sunday, so everyone affected: Please upgrade your PureOS installations and check whether the issue is actually solved!
(I'll mark this as fixed meanwhile, but feel free to reopen if the issue persists)

The package has migrated now.

Looks like the migration is blocked because it would break some older localization packages.
I gave it some manual hints to make the package migrate.

Uploading to the download page [..]

So, the problem is a simple test failure on arm64: https://software.pureos.net/builds/job/2ea4dd9c-5685-46cb-bd0c-f0d747053990

Assertion 'r < 0' failed at ../src/journal/test-compress.c:235, function test_lz4_decompress_partial(). Aborting.

@chris.lamb I'll have a look

See https://lists.puri.sm/pipermail/pureos-project/2019-January/000015.html for an explanation. The new image just needs to be tested and the download webpage updated in that case.

It's still on my todo list, but with a low priority, so it pretty much is at the bottom of the queue every time something else of higher importance is added.
Since we have AppStream and this feature isn't one of the most popular ones, its priority is low.
However, it is fixable and I intend to do so when the infrastructure redesign is applied.

Done. This was satisfying, not having to deal with the build of this beast it great!

Yeah, unfortunately the Librems are very often shipped with old software, Polywell didn't stay up-to-date with new releases. But issues like we had recently with the OEM setup of course also don't help with these issues.

Hmm yeah, then the PureOS version installed on that machine is likely very old.
In any case, after you update your system the issue will go away completely.

This is a task on my list, but it will take a lot of work and time to resolve properly. Dak isn't really designed for this, so some changes will be needed (just a normal dinstall run currently takes more than an hour alone).

I think this is an ancient bug - did you try a very old installation image of PureOS?

It's more tied to the fact that PureOS does not support UEFI in any way.
We should add support for it, but as of now this task is kind of low priority.

The helper script has now been split out into a new dbus-activated daemon. It's not the quality thing that I want yet, as the code needs some refactoring to work properly in an async way and the interface is quite crude, but it's good enough for a start.
See https://source.puri.sm/pureos/core/pureos-init-disk-crypto

This was actually pushed back too many times, and I should address this sooner - especially since there is other pending work on this module.

That doesn't help, the journal also contains the changes.
The good thing is that you'll only ever be able to read the password if you have root access on a drive that has already been unlocked using that password.

I am aware of this for a long time, it can only properly be fixed by making a proper service out of this tool, which I have not had the time to do yet due to piles upon piles of other critical tasks.
I might actually implement the service soon though, in the process of fixing swap-related boot issues.