Please update flashrom package
Closed, ResolvedPublic


We are currently up-to-date wrt Debian for flashrom. A request for a new upstream version has been filed here:

Can someone follow up on this ? That request says "it doesn't have huge changes but it would be nice to have it" is actually wrong since this v1.0 release actually adds Skylake support which is definitely a must-have rather than a nice-to-have feature. (At least for us).

@kakaroto This ticket is currently unassigned so it's not on anyone's radar. May I suggest assigning to @zlatan.todoric so that he can pass it on to whoever is free, etc.?

Sure, I have no idea how you guys do things, so I'll just assign it to zlatan as suggested. Thanks.

Bump. @zlatan.todoric any ETA on how soon can this be done ? @mladen.pejakovic needed to use flashrom yesterday and it wasn't working because it's still outdated, and I realized this hasn't been fixed yet.

zlatan.todoric added a subscriber: mak.

@mak, please make this bug your priority :)

mak added a comment.Aug 13 2018, 9:52 PM

Hmm, I can't update this in Debian unless I am NMUing the package of another maintainer, which I really don't want to do.
I could update this in PureOS, which would introduce a delta between Debian and PureOS.
The ideal solution would have been if the Debian maintainer had just updated the package...

Ping Debian maintainer but otherwise go ahead with change in PureOS.

I've uploaded lastest flashrom code to salsa on;
Next step (happening now) is to build the package for PureOS and then share any useful artifacts with Debian maintainer.

Hey @jeremiah.foster I don't see your other branches, or I don't understand where your debian/ directory is..? :)

Sorry, I haven't included my debian/ directory yet. I wanted to include a 'pristine' source. Of course I have added a patch, so it isn't pristine, but I wanted to get the source into salsa since there seems to be some movement with the ITA bug in Debian's bug tracker and hopefully we can all work with the same source.


Ah, getcha. In that case, I suggest you checkout pristine-tar and the whole gbp-buildpackage flow in general. That will mean you have both worlds with no compromise. :)

Will do! I've used both in the past, but found GBP's branching model confusing. Jonas and Matthias have recommendations so I hope to find something that works. :-)

flashrom 1.0 is in our repos but is not available yet. Will check on what the hold up is.

ps. Worth learning git-gbp as, well, "most" of Debian uses it these days so you'll bump into it whether you like it not. :)

Indeed. I used gbp to package flashrom for PureOS and will use it to package some other firmware. I still find the combination of git branching and Debian packaging confusing especially when one wants to package without .git and with debian/ :-|

jeremiah.foster triaged this task as "Low" priority.Wed, Jan 30, 5:13 PM

package without .git and with debian/


That was a bit cryptic, sorry. I mean that in a binary .deb package you don't want your source control tool cruft left inside since it is extraneous and doesn't keep the original upstream source pristine. But, at the same time, you do want a branch that contains the debian directory since that is where the control file and other debian files live which give instructions to the final binary. The consequences are that one has to jungle many branches and to make sure you're on the right branch when you call gpb. Or perhaps I haven't got the hang of it yet.

in a binary .deb package you don't want your source control tool cruft left inside

Hm? gbp-dch would never do this to a binary .deb nor a source package. Perhaps you have been misled by some of the rather diverse documentation? Indeed, I would struggle to work out *how* to do this, rather than to avoid it. Pristine source tarballs are, of course, what I use all the time... Probably off-topic for this ticket now, alas. :)

flashrom 1.0 in PureOS and new Debian maintainer upstream.

jeremiah.foster closed this task as "Resolved".Fri, Feb 15, 5:11 PM

Add Comment