[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: fwupdate (Re: efivar 0.18-1 uploaded to unstable)

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 06:33:48PM -0500, Steve McIntyre wrote:
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.

Makes sense. I'll make that change then.

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.

Right, OK.

(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....

I talked to Peter, and it looks like he's going to make the versioning for both efivar and fwupdate more sane. I'm waiting for him to commit those changes.


Jared Domínguez
Infrastructure Software Engineering
Dell | Enterprise Solutions Group

Reply to: