hmm...but it also claims it already knows about 0.0.3:

reuploaded.

But source only packages don't have binary fields, do they?

$ diff -u librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_source.changes librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_amd64.changes 
--- librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_source.changes	2019-05-10 09:40:03.547341329 +0200
+++ librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_amd64.changes	2019-05-10 09:40:03.251334929 +0200
@@ -1,12 +1,16 @@
 Format: 1.8
 Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2019 18:14:54 +0100
 Source: librem5-devkit-tools
-Architecture: source
+Binary: librem5-devkit-check librem5-devkit-host
+Architecture: source all
 Version: 0.0.2
 Distribution: green
 Urgency: medium
 Maintainer: Guido Günther <agx@sigxcpu.org>
 Changed-By: Guido Günther <agx@sigxcpu.org>
+Description:
+ librem5-devkit-check - Check script for the librem5-evk (devkit)
+ librem5-devkit-host - Tools for the librem5 devkit (host side)
 Changes:
  librem5-devkit-tools (0.0.2) green; urgency=medium
  .
@@ -50,12 +54,18 @@
 Checksums-Sha1:
  81e28197203dca97ff08210434712b507af87e4e 807 librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2.dsc
  6fa81bb4a16c215876d90a0b5621694606f4499f 3145044 librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2.tar.xz
+ af677461b38832c9bf982731c7e2da25f4d32c08 4344 librem5-devkit-check_0.0.2_all.deb
+ 98a5091e26dd981556b6af50f27956685ac96739 7292 librem5-devkit-host_0.0.2_all.deb
  44505ad3ed264d8f36050ccce0f5d8aaa6152281 5586 librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_amd64.buildinfo
 Checksums-Sha256:
  9e2678e5f7f47e0bea0bb5e4d4a444ac55cf1277ba6f758de4cb7ab4fa7bca61 807 librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2.dsc
  409c7da987f61417393a3b9a6928db6f6fb126785e830c292515a1053787c326 3145044 librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2.tar.xz
+ f868c11abb80cb704a275bbb0aad829553fc03b81e7779f1f04e33459d7a5397 4344 librem5-devkit-check_0.0.2_all.deb
+ bf2ffd3d7cc9ffcf14295bb88f021cf6b38286437e3c3aa8b2dd37b5318a4d0e 7292 librem5-devkit-host_0.0.2_all.deb
  8ea700fb34b8ef045ca5fa89cd42d4315da8769686da1f9e764d329ce509a7f8 5586 librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_amd64.buildinfo
 Files:
  9d92f14fb555cdb72716629b18ac7535 807 utils optional librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2.dsc
  abf12ff17e58b7bc620e80bd4784954a 3145044 utils optional librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2.tar.xz
+ 1f4bec1041b0a3824402e7b913dedb01 4344 utils optional librem5-devkit-check_0.0.2_all.deb
+ 06c0b6e379a2770c5d491f72e2caeafe 7292 utils optional librem5-devkit-host_0.0.2_all.deb
  cda9774535ca4072ee0b89d7ec4c2e5e 5586 utils optional librem5-devkit-tools_0.0.2_amd64.buildinfo

A plain pbuilder (dpkg-buildpackage) build and then using the _source.changes

I've added support to debuerreotype for that https://github.com/debuerreotype/debuerreotype/pull/63 and put current images here: https://hub.docker.com/r/godiug/pureos/tags

webrtc progress: https://blogs.gnome.org/tsaunier/2018/07/31/webkitgtk-and-wpe-gains-webrtc-support-back/

I've reuploaded the same package I uploaded on jan 3rd. source package is librem5-devkit-tools.

Other possibly interesting stuff:

uploaded mfgtools_1.2.91+0git6b465-0pureos+librem5.1_amd64.changes

The corresponding source package (librem5-devkit-tools) was uploaded but the librem5-devkit-host package did not make it into the archive. @mak did some investigations on why that happened but I don't think there was a clear outcome.

From the phone perspective we we'd like to pull a rather fixed set of packages from e.g. Debian experimental during the freeze automatically (assuming Debian's GNOME team ends up putting the packages there) but after all it's more of an example of a general pattern: grab packages a, b, c from repository x (ideally including required dependencies not present in the target distribution).

@jeremiah.foster Packaging is here: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/mfgtools/tree/pureos/purple

This is also related to https://tracker.pureos.net/T594

I've put initial packaging here https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/mfgtools/tree/pureos/purple .
RFP for Debian is . I'm happy to maintain this in Debian if someone from the PureOS team joins me.

Just for reference: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/librem5-devkit-tools - it will gain a librem5-devkit-host part with the next MR.

@sean.obrien (this might become a bit off topic): the flatpak side needs more work for the 3rd party apps.

We have purple and laboratory in PureOS and the CI repos for phone development.

Please see the GNOME case above, this is really not tied to our CI.

You have me confused now. I thought the whole transitioning between landing -> and green is there to detect these inconsistencies?
Also I'd be syncing for me does not imply syncing binaries. Rebuilding the ones not synced from testing would be a great first step in rebuilding everything.

Uploading to once place is more comfortable than to two ;)

I'm wondering if this is on anyone's horizon yet? If not I would put it on my TODO list since it would be good to have this running so we can test phone stuff on PureOS in gitlab's CI as well (instead of "only" Debian testing).

If we fix the underlying issue all users logged into a GNOME session will be in the KVM group and no additional work is necessay, it works out of the box (as users would expect). Just pull this systemd patch into PureOS:

Ubuntu's scripts (/usr/share/debootstrap/scripts) are also in Debian. Would be great if the same were to be true for pureos since that would tickle to all downstreams and enable many more people to contribute without hazards.

There's also tools like vmdeboostrap that invoke deboostrap / pbuilder directly. It would be much simpler if they could work out of the box.

can we get rid of this hack? There will be more people contributing to pureos in the future (phone team).

@mak then what about

(this relates to the original topic of recompiling packages not about having to rebuild because we carry patches)

@chris.lamb as noted in https://bugs.debian.org/889990 I think logind should adjust the ACL as it does for the dri and audio devices.

sudo adduser <youruser> kvm

newgrp kvm
killall libvirtd
libvirtd

I think I've found the issue: Can you try to add the user to the KVM group and see if it helps?

Any chance somebody could run the above

What version of libvirt, qemu and gnome-boxes is pureos currently shipping? Any patches on top of Debian proper?

@kyle.rankin the setcap is only for a follow up problem. It won't help with the CPU type conflict.

Oh, installation on Debian buster works with e.g.:

@chris.lamb that's the same issue. Could someone having this problem please run

@chris.lamb yes, I think that's the same issue. I hope to get around to look at it again later this week.

Oh and

Hi,
can you please do a