Re: fwupdate (Re: efivar 0.18-1 uploaded to unstable)
On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:45:03AM -0500, D. Jared Dominguez wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 05:20:40PM -0500, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:53:39PM -0500, D. Jared Dominguez wrote:
>>>On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 02:28:02PM -0500, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>>>>Let me know when/what you'd like me yo upload too.
>>>Thanks. My only open concerns about fwupdate are what if anything to do about
>>>these two lintian warnings:
>>>W: fwupdate: executable-not-elf-or-script boot/efi/EFI/Debian/fwupdate.efi
>>That'll be because it's marked executable, I guess? Just chmod -x it,
>>it's not like you run it from Linux after all?
>So, looking at how grub does things, it installs what goes into /boot/efi
>into /usr/lib/grub and then copies to /boot/efi. Once that's done, the .efi
>files under /boot/efi show up as executable under Linux, though I'm not
>really sure what that even means for UEFI.
Exactly - UEFI doesn't care about executable bits at all. Like
old-school DOS stuff, it's just the filename extension that tells it
if things should be runnable. The apparent executable-ness of the
files under /boot/efi on a system is just due to the default
permissions mask for mounting FAT32.
However, the warning you're seeing is because the file is marked as
executable *in the data.tar.gz* in the .deb. Fixing that should be as
simple as "chmod -x" in the package build.
>>>W: libfwup0: package-name-doesnt-match-sonames libfwup0.4
>>>The first one I think needs to be ignored or overridden. The second one I'm
>>>not sure about how serious it is. If you think it's important, I'll see about
>>>having that library name changed.
>>Hmmm. Do we need the separate library package, even? Is anybody
>>else expecting to use it, or is it just internal to the package?
>fwupd needs it.
>(FYI, that's the next package I'm working on, though since it's got a
>bunch of GNOME dependencies, I have someone who is familiar with
>GNOME who offered to sponsor it.)
Ewww, GNOME. :-)
>I notice that libefivar uses libefivar.so.0. Maybe we should do that instead.
>I'll ping Peter about that.
That probably makes more sense, but it depends on what ABI stability
(if any!) he's planning on providing with libfwup....
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
< sladen> I actually stayed in a hotel and arrived to find a post-it
note stuck to the mini-bar saying "Paul: This fridge and
fittings are the correct way around and do not need altering"