On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 19:26, Marcus Müller <marcus(a)hostalia.de> wrote:
I fully agree with that assessment. "Here's a knob you turn
that has the potential to make
your firmware update 2s faster and is generally good for the ecosystem, but you will
have
set it on every machine you set up" will not lead to significant deployment.
Agree.
Question: I presume you only want to share the metadata, and never
downloaded fw images,
right?
I think for phase 1 that's completely correct.
If that's the case, it'd alleviate a lot of the privacy
concerns I'd have with my
laptop sharing with a campus network all of the devices for which I've lately
downloaded
firmware.
There are concerns with sharing firmware, I totally agree. It's
non-free software (which you have permission to redistribute, but
still unpalatable for many) -- the compromise I've done for people
changing the default to "metadata,firmware" is that you need to reboot
into the new firmware before the published firmware gets shared; on
the logic that you don't want to advertise to the world that you're
currently running insecure firmware.
Can I suggest we make this at most a "Recommends:"
dependence for fwupd in any case, so
that one might uninstall passim without disabling fwupd?
Yes, that's what I have right now. I do need to split out a
passim-libs so that you can remove the daemon and just leave the tiny
client library.
I'd actually love if I knew of a way my fedora containers could
automagically find
local package and metadata sources. Knowing that "change dnf to pull data from
mDNS-announced sources *by default*" is a big change, flying the fwupd balloon first
seems
very attractive to me.
Yup, totally agree. I think it's a nice self contained test that if
successful we could extend out to DNF metadata and other container-y
stuff.
Richard.