Control: severity -1 normal On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 10:49:15PM +0200, Andreas Heinlein wrote: > The meta-package grub-efi depends on either grub-efi-amd64 if > installation architecture is amd64, or grub-efi-ia32 if installed on i386.
To persuade me that this is important, you'll need to first persuade me that the grub-efi binary package actually matters. As far as I'm concerned, it exists only for upgrade purposes (note that it's in Section: oldlibs). Although d-i does use it as a fallback, it generally tries to work out the firmware architecture instead. > So either need to determine EFI architecture at install time and then > pull in the correct package (hard way), Not so hard considering that the installer has code to do this already! I think we should probably change d-i to stop expecting grub-efi to exist even as a fallback, and instead fall back to the userspace architecture (of course not ideal, but good enough as a fallback given that it will look at /sys/firmware/efi/fw_platform_size first). We can then simply drop grub-efi entirely rather than debating what its dependencies should be. > or correct the dependencies and depend on *both* grub-efi-amd64 and > grub-efi-ia32, regardless of installation architecture (easy way). I > did the latter for tests on our machines and found no problems so far > with both of them co-existing. I don't think you can have tested that very extensively, since grub-efi-amd64 and grub-efi-ia32 declare Conflicts on each other. In general, multiple grub-<platform>-bin packages are coinstallable, but multiple grub-<platform> packages are not; this is intentional because the semantics of grub-<platform> are to assert ownership of the system's boot process. Regards, -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org]