Re: Correct transition path for moving EFI application
Sent from VMware Boxer
On Jul 3, 2018 09:58, Steve McIntyre <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 02:25:10PM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@dell.com wrote:
> >Hi All,
> Hey Mario!
> >We’re right about to merge something in upstream fwupd that takes all of
> >fwupdate and puts it into the fwupd package.
> >Fwupd will directly manage installation of the EFI application to the ESP
> >(including detection of the ESP location at runtime).
> >In order to accomplish this I think it’s important that fwupdate is
> >no longer installed with fwupd. I wanted to ask for some advice
> >however on what the proper packaging transition path is.
> >Currently fwupdate has
> >This is installed to the ESP with a postinst script.
> >Fwupd has:
> >This is installed at runtime when a capsule update is installed.
> >The file on the ESP is compared and if different the one in /usr/lib/fwupd/efi/
> >fwupx64.efi will be installed.
> >So the files don’t strictly conflict, but I think it would be better
> >for fwupdate to be removed for transition purpose to avoid confusion
> >of which package is installed to the ESP (especially since fwupdate
> >is “currently” recommends for fwupd [that will be dropped]).
> Yes, fair enough. They don't conflict in terms of direct file paths in
> the packages, but they conflict in terms of functionality via the
> files in the ESP.
> >It seems that this should be case #11, right?
> >Breaks: fwupdate (<< 11)
> >Replaces: fwupdate (<< 11)
> >Provides: fwupdate
> >I tried to do this, but I encounter something along the lines of:
> >dpkg: regarding fwupd*deb containing fwupd:
> >fwupd breaks fwupdate (<< 11)
> > fwupdate (version 10-3) is present and installed
> >dpkg: error processing archive fwupd*deb (--install):
> > installing fwupd would break fwupdate, and
> >deconfiguration is not permitted (--auto-deconfigure might help)
> >Errors were encountered when processing:
> The transition path looks perfectly OK to me, and it's exactly what
> I'd have suggested. How are you testing here? Using dpkg directly, or
> via apt?
Thanks for confirming. I was doing it with dpkg. Do you expect apt would have resolved the upgrade path properly then?
> Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. email@example.com
> "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
> English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on
> occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
> unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary." -- James D. Nicoll