Arch Linux

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#79902 - [fwupd] Build without passim dependency

Attached to Project: Arch Linux
Opened by Jake Dane (jakedane) - Tuesday, 10 October 2023, 06:40 GMT
Last edited by freswa (frederik) - Tuesday, 10 October 2023, 21:42 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages: Extra
Status Closed
Assigned To Bruno Pagani (ArchangeGabriel)
freswa (frederik)
Filipe Laíns (FFY00)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 1
Private No

Details

Description:
Last month fwupd 1.9.5-1 added a dependency on passim, an unauthenticated, unsigned mDNS caching service on the local network. The use case for passim is "thousands of users" [1] on the current network needing the same firmware file, so they can fetch it locally instead of from a CDN. Is a significant percentage of Arch Linux systems being operated on a local network with thousands of users that have the same hardware? I don't think so.

fwupd can be built without the passim dependency and I suggest it should.

[1] https://github.com/hughsie/passim#introduction

Additional info:
* package version(s): 1.9.6-1

Steps to reproduce:
- Install fwupd, passim gets installed as well
This task depends upon

Closed by  freswa (frederik)
Tuesday, 10 October 2023, 21:42 GMT
Reason for closing:  Won't implement
Comment by Toolybird (Toolybird) - Tuesday, 10 October 2023, 20:42 GMT
See the related in discussion in  FS#79614 . In general, Arch tries to enable most features. If no interest from PM, this request will be declined ASAP.

> The use case for passim is "thousands of users"

Incorrect. Please don't latch on to a single phrase and twist it by omitting the most important word i.e. "perhaps"

> have the same hardware

Are you sure? It seems to be small metadata file that *everyone* downloads irrespective of hardware.

@freswa, it seems this issue is not going away :( Any chance you will reconsider splitting out the passim libs as it seems to be the "least friction" solution? I know we don't do that lightly, but there are some exceptions i.e. systemd-libs, libpipewire, boost-libs, etc. See also [1] for some choice ranting...

I personally don't care either way, so feel free to whack this on the head :)

[1] https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=289297
Comment by freswa (frederik) - Tuesday, 10 October 2023, 21:42 GMT
Let's see how passim develops in the near future. We may reconsider splitting later but a solution where fwupd loads the shared object conditionally at runtime would be the preferred way imo.

Loading...