| Newsgroups |
gmane.linux.lfs.beyond.devel |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
On 7/22/25 2:38 PM, "Douglas R. Reno" ([email protected] via blfs-dev
Mailing List) wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> Earlier in this cycle I mentioned adding fwupd to BLFS. fwupd is a package designed
> to handle firmware updates on some systems, and the list of compatible systems grows
> more and more by the day. In addition to BIOS updates, it also includes firmware
> updates for wireless mice, headsets, and other peripherals.
>
> Unfortunately the end of this cycle has crept up on me a bit faster than I expected,
> and with everything else that has happened outside of LFS, I have not had a chance to
> add it yet.
>
> Given that there are still problems with 13th-14th generation Intel CPUs as well as
> some of the Core Ultra series that cause them to simply burnout with regular usage,
> and the fact that some Socket AM5 CPUs are also overvolting themselves due to BIOS-
> related problems and destroying both the motherboard *and* the CPU, I think it might
> be a good time to bring this up again. Each system has a different way of handling
> firmware, but it would be extremely useful for devices which are supported via fwupd,
> and it may save supported devices from the failing CPU fate that **will** happen if
> the problems aren't taken care of via firmware updates.
>
> Is adding fwupd and gnome-firmware (and the KDE components necessary for it to work
> over there) something that I should still do this cycle? In terms of testing, there
> is a simulated device that fwupd can update firmware on for testing purposes, so
> editors who don't have supported devices can still test it that way.
>
> One of the biggest concerns is that a system needs to be booted with UEFI for fwupd
> to do some of it's work. We only point users to BLFS for EFI support, so that's a
> conversation I would like to bring up at some point as we're going to start getting
> to the point where users don't have CSM support available in their motherboards (for
> example, the motherboard for my i9-14900K has it for i7-based chips, but not i9
> chips!). Do we need to expand the note in LFS if we add fwupd, or do we consider
> making UEFI support the default? That has been standard on boards for 13 years now...
>
> What are your thoughts?
I think fwupd would be a good addition to BLFS. As for the note in LFS Section 10.4
(grub), I think it is generally adequate, but it could be expanded. I would be in
favor of promoting the note to Important though.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page