Bug#943465: fwupd is wrongly marked Multi-Arch: foreign

On Oct 25, 2019 14:46, Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> wrote:

[EXTERNAL EMAIL]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 04:01:10PM +0000, Mario.Limonciello@dell.com wrote:
> I made some modifications and think I captured your suggestion here
> https://github.com/fwupd/fwupd/commit/3508aecefdbd81924314834ac9e14bcd71aa253f
>
> Can you make sure that looks good now?

Unfortunately, no. Ansgar Burchardt kindly pointed out that Built-Using
must refer to a source package, not a binary package. This was wrong in
the previous iteration and I didn't spot it. Refer to the debian policy
section 7.8.

Now there are two other subtle things left.

Previously, fwupd included the *.efi images. Now it recommends them. Is
that enough or should that be a hard dependency to retain the old
behaviour? I don't know. Does fwupd actually work without the *.efi
binaries?

It used to be a hard dependency, but these days the runtime will detect this situation and show the user an error that the efi binary is missing so they can't do UEFI updates until installed.

It was introduced about the same time we introduced signed binaries to Debian.

I'm also wondering why the signing-template includes the SIGNARCH in the
package name. This is not a regression, but it should follow the same
reasoning as for why fwupd-unsigned doesn't have to include an
architecture. Do note that the same binary package may be built from
different source packages for different architectures as long as now two
source packages build it for the same architecture. For instance
libsystemd-dev used to be built from different source packages for
linux-any and kfreebsd-any. Can we simplify that part as well?

Helmut

This was mostly copied off of what grub2 did, which split it up this way. I don't see a strong reason that it can't be adjusted (of course need to do package transitions and stuff).

Steve, any thoughts?