RE: fwupdate is marked for autoremoval from testing
----Original Message-----
> From: Limonciello, Mario
> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2019 5:10 PM
> To: 'Steve McIntyre'
> Cc: debian-efi@lists.debian.org
> Subject: 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.
Can you take a look at this?
https://salsa.debian.org/efi-team/fwupd/commit/04cb53bdce9037c4af09b70486efd26eb89686e0
Bug 941661 just got filed because it promoted to testing (duplicate of 941360), so I think we need
to upload soon.
Reply to: