Re: Adding fwupd to BLFS

On 7/22/25 2:55 PM, Bruce Dubbs ([email protected] via blfs-dev 
Mailing List) wrote:
> 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

That sounds good to me, I'll file a ticket later and accept it! I think 
promoting the note to Important for now is a good idea too and I'll 
draft some text for review when it comes to expanding the note :)

I suspect I'll do it the same week that we update Plasma/KF6 so I can 
test integrating KDE's Discover application from Plasma with fwupd 
itself and adjust the text to make sure users can use it. I'll also need 
to write a SysV bootscript for fwupd, but I've been using a SysV VM for 
some of my work with JDK already so it should be easy for me to write a 
bootscript for it :)

- Doug

-- 
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/sympa/info/blfs-dev
Unsubscribe: See the above information page