IMO, use the signed one as the secure boot disable seems harmless. However, that makes it a little annoying in the development phase (ex: share build in PPA) if we have fwupd / fwupd-efi version dependency in the future.
If we won't have version dependency between the two binary for good, it seems fine then. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1949412 Title: Upgrade fwupd for Atomic Docking Support To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/oem-priority/+bug/1949412/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
