RE: fwupdate is marked for autoremoval from testing
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 6:15 AM
> To: Limonciello, Mario
> Cc: debian-efi@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: fwupdate is marked for autoremoval from testing
>
>
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
>
> Hi Mario!
>
> [ dropping CCs ]
>
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 02:51:28PM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@dell.com wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2019 9:42 AM
> >> To: Limonciello, Mario
> >> Cc: fwupdate@packages.debian.org; ftpmaster@debian.org; debian-
> >> efi@lists.debian.org
> >> Subject: Re: fwupdate is marked for autoremoval from testing
> >>
> >>
> >> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 01:36:11PM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@dell.com
> wrote:
> >> >Hi,
> >> >
> >> >For fwupdate it's been converted to a transition package to move people to
> >> fwupd, but it's not promoting from unstable to testing.
> >> >Is there something that needs to be done on packager side, or ftp-master
> side?
> >>
> >> We probably need to make all the -signed packages *also* into
> >> transitional packages too, so they'll be ready to migrate. At the
> >> moment they're all tied together by dependencies and knowledge in
> >> britney...
> >>
> >> --
> >
> >I would rather let those get removed if that helps this rather than a bunch more
> transition
> >packages if possible.
> >
> >What about adding a clause for fwupdate's debian/control for:
> >Provides: fwupdate-amd64-signed, fwupdate-i386-signed- fwupdate-armhf-
> signed, fwupdate-arm64-signed
> >
> >Would that be good enough?
>
> It still won't fix things AFAICS. What I think we need to do is:
>
> 1. In fwupd, add Provides/Replaces, plus Conflicts: against the older
> versions of fwupdate-*-signed. That will tell apt to upgrade
> cleanly and thereby switch to fwupd instead. See
> https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-
> reference/ch05.html#s5.9.3
OK. I'ved pushed this to salsa. Can you review and make sure I didn't mess it up?
Feel free to upload if you think it looks good, otherwise I'll wait for your confirmation.
>
> I can see that you've added a Breaks: for the -template packages,
> but I don't see that helping here. No actual users will ever
> install the -template packages, they're just for the buildds to
> use.
>
Do you think we need to add Breaks to fwupdate-*-signed too then on a fwupdate
12-8, or will that just complicate thing?
> 2. Stop building the various fwupdate binary packages (already done)
>
> 3. File removal bugs (against ftp.d.o) for the existing
> fwupdate-*-signed source packages in unstable. That will pull them
> out from unstable, and that will propagate to testing too.
>
> How does that sound? Once we're all done there, we can talk to
> ftpmaster about removing fwupdate from the special list of allowed
> -signed packages, but that's not a priority.
>
Sounds good to me.
Reply to: