Bug#863250: fwupd: newer upstream version (0.9.2) available

2017-05-25 Thread Mario.Limonciello 
> -Original Message-
> From: Iain Lane [mailto:i...@orangesquash.org.uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 11:46 AM
> To: Limonciello, Mario <mario_limoncie...@dell.com>; 863...@bugs.debian.org
> Cc: m...@debian.org; c.schoen...@t-online.de; sub...@bugs.debian.org
> Subject: Re: Bug#863250: fwupd: newer upstream version (0.9.2) available
> 
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 01:21:53PM +, mario.limoncie...@dell.com wrote:
> > 0.9.x has changed the build system significantly and there should be 
> > expected
> regressions that are still being shaken out.
> >
> > I've updated the debian-next git packaging branch to 0.9.2.
> > https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/uefi/fwupd.git/log/?h=debian-next
> >
> > If you would like to help @hughsie in validation of 0.9.2 with some Logitech
> devices as a result of that blog post, that will build against unstable.
> 
> I've just uploaded polkits which include the .its and .loc files to sid
> and exp, so you can revert fd6e03bdb693a2b86a54f35238a74fc7ee97fec2 now
> and Build-Depend on policykit-1 (>> 0.105-17) instead.
> 
> Is there any chance you can upload this to experimental for ease of
> testing? I was thinking about syncing it to Ubuntu if you do that - we
> should be early enough in the cycle for it. There are some bugs fixed on
> upstream/master also.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> --
> Iain Lane  [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ]
> Debian Developer   [ la...@debian.org ]
> Ubuntu Developer   [ la...@ubuntu.com ]
@laney,

I ripped out that patch and build depended upon the new polkit [1], uploaded to 
experimental but build still fails.

"msgfmt: cannot locate ITS rules for 
../../policy/org.freedesktop.fwupd.policy.in" [2]

Did I do something wrong?

I don't have an experimental pbuilder set up, so I'm not able to easily debug 
at this moment.

[1] 
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/uefi/fwupd.git/commit/?h=debian-next=cc3bf83952aa68f6a4c26d14844b3fe45920f53b
[2] 
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=fwupd=amd64=0.9.2-2=1495733744=0

Bug#863250: fwupd: newer upstream version (0.9.2) available

2017-05-25 Thread Carsten Schoenert 
Hello Mario,

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 01:21:53PM +, mario.limoncie...@dell.com wrote:
... 
> 0.9.x has changed the build system significantly and there should be
> expected regressions that are still being shaken out.
> 
> I've updated the debian-next git packaging branch to 0.9.2. 
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/uefi/fwupd.git/log/?h=debian-next
> 
> If you would like to help @hughsie in validation of 0.9.2 with some
> Logitech devices as a result of that blog post, that will build
> against unstable.

thanks for pushing a updated tree for 0.9.2 so quickly.

I pulled the tree and tried to build the current prepared files. I
needed to add systemd as B-D as without the configuration was failing
with the chroot.

Now the build is succesful (as it seems) but the test chain isn't
succesful afterwards.

ving directory '/build/fwupd-0.9.2'
>debian/rules override_dh_auto_test
> make[1]: Entering directory '/build/fwupd-0.9.2'
> if [ -x /usr/bin/valgrind ] ; then \
>   ninja -Cdebian/build test -v; \
> fi
> ninja: Entering directory `debian/build'
> [0/1] '/usr/bin/python3' '/usr/share/meson/mesontest' '--no-rebuild' 
> '--print-errorlogs'
> 1/8 dfu-self-test   FAIL 0.08 s
> 2/8 fwupd-self-test OK   0.06 s
> 3/8 raspberrypi-self-test   OK   0.09 s
> 4/8 udev-self-test  OK   0.10 s
> 5/8 unifying-self-test  OK   0.04 s
> 6/8 dell-self-test  OK   0.07 s
> 7/8 synapticsmst-self-test  OK   0.06 s
> 8/8 fu-self-testOK   2.15 s
> 
> OK: 7
> FAIL:   1
> SKIP:   0
> TIMEOUT:0
> 
> 
> The output from the failed tests:
> 
> 1/8 dfu-self-test   FAIL 0.08 s
> 
> --- command ---
> /build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test
> --- stdout ---
> /libdfu/enums: OK
> /libdfu/target(DfuSe}: 
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> Zone:0, Sec#:0, Addr:0x0800, Size:0x0400, Caps:0x1 [R]
> Zone:0, Sec#:0, Addr:0x08000400, Size:0x0400, Caps:0x1 [R]
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> Zone:0, Sec#:0, Addr:0x0800, Size:0x0400, Caps:0x1 [R]
> Zone:0, Sec#:0, Addr:0x08000400, Size:0x0400, Caps:0x1 [R]
> Zone:0, Sec#:1, Addr:0x08000800, Size:0x0400, Caps:0x7 [REW]
> Zone:0, Sec#:1, Addr:0x08000c00, Size:0x0400, Caps:0x7 [REW]
> Zone:0, Sec#:1, Addr:0x08001000, Size:0x0400, Caps:0x7 [REW]
> Zone:0, Sec#:1, Addr:0x08001400, Size:0x0400, Caps:0x7 [REW]
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> Zone:0, Sec#:0, Addr:0xf000, Size:0x0064, Caps:0x1 [R]
> Zone:0, Sec#:0, Addr:0xf064, Size:0x0064, Caps:0x1 [R]
> Zone:0, Sec#:0, Addr:0xf0c8, Size:0x0064, Caps:0x1 [R]
> Zone:0, Sec#:0, Addr:0xf12c, Size:0x0064, Caps:0x1 [R]
> Zone:1, Sec#:0, Addr:0xe000, Size:0x2000, Caps:0x7 [REW]
> Zone:1, Sec#:0, Addr:0x0001, Size:0x2000, Caps:0x7 [REW]
> Zone:1, Sec#:0, Addr:0x00012000, Size:0x2000, Caps:0x7 [REW]
> Zone:2, Sec#:0, Addr:0x0008, Size:0x6000, Caps:0x7 [REW]
> Zone:2, Sec#:0, Addr:0x00086000, Size:0x6000, Caps:0x7 [REW]
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> OK
> /libdfu/firmware{raw}: OK
> /libdfu/firmware{dfu}: OK
> /libdfu/firmware{dfuse}: 
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> image_size_total: 92663
> OK
> /libdfu/firmware{xdfu}: OK
> /libdfu/firmware{metadata}: 
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> adding metadata key=value
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> metadata table was 13/239 bytes
> OK
> /libdfu/firmware{intel-hex}: 
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: base 
> address 4000
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> writing data 0x4000
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> writing data 0x4008
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> filling address 0x4004
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> filling address 0x4005
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> filling address 0x4006
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> filling address 0x4007
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> writing data 0x4018
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> writing data 0x4028
> (/build/fwupd-0.9.2/debian/build/libdfu/dfu-self-test:17679): Dfu-DEBUG: 
> writing data 0x4038
>

Bug#863250: fwupd: newer upstream version (0.9.2) available

2017-05-24 Thread Iain Lane 
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 01:21:53PM +, mario.limoncie...@dell.com wrote:
> 0.9.x has changed the build system significantly and there should be expected 
> regressions that are still being shaken out.
> 
> I've updated the debian-next git packaging branch to 0.9.2. 
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/uefi/fwupd.git/log/?h=debian-next
> 
> If you would like to help @hughsie in validation of 0.9.2 with some Logitech 
> devices as a result of that blog post, that will build against unstable.

I've just uploaded polkits which include the .its and .loc files to sid
and exp, so you can revert fd6e03bdb693a2b86a54f35238a74fc7ee97fec2 now
and Build-Depend on policykit-1 (>> 0.105-17) instead.

Is there any chance you can upload this to experimental for ease of
testing? I was thinking about syncing it to Ubuntu if you do that - we
should be early enough in the cycle for it. There are some bugs fixed on
upstream/master also.

Cheers,

-- 
Iain Lane  [ i...@orangesquash.org.uk ]
Debian Developer   [ la...@debian.org ]
Ubuntu Developer   [ la...@ubuntu.com ]


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#863250: fwupd: newer upstream version (0.9.2) available

2017-05-24 Thread Mario.Limonciello 
> -Original Message-
> From: k.matthia...@gmail.com [mailto:k.matthia...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Matthias Klumpp
> Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 7:27 AM
> To: Carsten Schoenert <c.schoen...@t-online.de>; 863...@bugs.debian.org
> Cc: Debian Bug Tracking System <sub...@bugs.debian.org>
> Subject: Bug#863250: fwupd: newer upstream version (0.9.2) available
> 
> 2017-05-24 14:09 GMT+02:00 Carsten Schoenert <c.schoen...@t-online.de>:
> > Package: fwupd
> > Version: 0.7.4-2
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > Dear Maintainer,
> >
> > some more new upstream versions are available. Nothing serious but after
> > the blogpost of Richard Hughes [1] it's probably worth to upload the
> > current new version 0.9.2 to unstable.
> 
> As we are still in freeze for the Debian 9 release, a new upload to
> unstable likely won't happen. Experimental, maybe.
> In any case, Stretch should be out soonish, which will make updates to
> unstable come out faster again.
> 
> Cheers,
> Matthias

0.9.x has changed the build system significantly and there should be expected 
regressions that are still being shaken out.

I've updated the debian-next git packaging branch to 0.9.2. 
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/uefi/fwupd.git/log/?h=debian-next

If you would like to help @hughsie in validation of 0.9.2 with some Logitech 
devices as a result of that blog post, that will build against unstable.

Bug#863250: fwupd: newer upstream version (0.9.2) available

2017-05-24 Thread Matthias Klumpp 
2017-05-24 14:09 GMT+02:00 Carsten Schoenert :
> Package: fwupd
> Version: 0.7.4-2
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> some more new upstream versions are available. Nothing serious but after
> the blogpost of Richard Hughes [1] it's probably worth to upload the
> current new version 0.9.2 to unstable.

As we are still in freeze for the Debian 9 release, a new upload to
unstable likely won't happen. Experimental, maybe.
In any case, Stretch should be out soonish, which will make updates to
unstable come out faster again.

Cheers,
Matthias

Bug#863250: fwupd: newer upstream version (0.9.2) available

2017-05-24 Thread Carsten Schoenert 
Package: fwupd
Version: 0.7.4-2
Severity: wishlist

Dear Maintainer,

some more new upstream versions are available. Nothing serious but after
the blogpost of Richard Hughes [1] it's probably worth to upload the
current new version 0.9.2 to unstable.

[1] 
https://blogs.gnome.org/hughsie/2017/05/22/updating-logitech-hardware-on-linux/

Thanks and regards
Carsten

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.0
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64
 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.9.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages fwupd depends on:
ii  libappstream-glib8 0.6.8-1
ii  libarchive13   3.2.2-2
ii  libassuan0 2.4.3-2
ii  libc6  2.24-10
ii  libcolord2 1.3.3-2
ii  libcolorhug2   1.3.3-2
ii  libdfu10.7.4-2
ii  libebitdo1 0.7.4-2
ii  libefivar1 30-2
ii  libelf10.168-0.2
ii  libfwup1   8-3
ii  libfwupd1  0.7.4-2
ii  libgcab-1.0-0  0.7-2
ii  libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0 2.36.5-2
ii  libglib2.0-0   2.50.3-2
ii  libgpg-error0  1.26-2
ii  libgpgme11 1.8.0-3+b2
ii  libgudev-1.0-0 230-3
ii  libgusb2   0.2.9-1+b1
ii  libpolkit-gobject-1-0  0.105-17
ii  libsmbios2 2.3.1-1+b1
ii  libsoup2.4-1   2.56.0-2
ii  libsqlite3-0   3.16.2-3
ii  libusb-1.0-0   2:1.0.21-1

Versions of packages fwupd recommends:
ii  fwupdate  8-3

fwupd suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information