On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote: > Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the > FTBFS.  There do not appear to be any consumers: > > # dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi{,-devel} --source > Last metadata expiration check: 0:05:32 ago on Tue 25 Jan 2022 01:09:26 PM EST. > gnu-efi-3.0.11-7.1.fc36.src.rpm $ repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi-devel efitools-0:1.9.2-6.fc36.src fwupd-efi-0:1.2-1.fc36.src pesign-test-app-0:5-26.fc34.src sbsigntools-0:0.9.4-7.fc36.src shim-unsigned-aarch64-0:15-1.fc28.src

Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; writes: > On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote: >> Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the >> FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers: >> >> # dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi{,-devel} --source >> Last metadata expiration check: 0:05:32 ago on Tue 25 Jan 2022 01:09:26 PM EST. >> gnu-efi-3.0.11-7.1.fc36.src.rpm > > $ repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi-devel > efitools-0:1.9.2-6.fc36.src > fwupd-efi-0:1.2-1.fc36.src > pesign-test-app-0:5-26.fc34.src > sbsigntools-0:0.9.4-7.fc36.src > shim-unsigned-aarch64-0:15-1.fc28.src Noted, thanks. I'll file a dnf bug and not abandon it.

Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; writes: > On 25. 01. 22 19:53, Robbie Harwood wrote: >> Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; writes: >> >>> On 25. 01. 22 19:17, Robbie Harwood wrote: >>>> Hello, we plan to orphan gnu-efi shortly after I finish fixing the >>>> FTBFS. There do not appear to be any consumers: >>>> >>>> # dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi{,-devel} --source >>>> Last metadata expiration check: 0:05:32 ago on Tue 25 Jan 2022 01:09:26 PM EST. >>>> gnu-efi-3.0.11-7.1.fc36.src.rpm >>> >>> $ repoquery --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi-devel >>> efitools-0:1.9.2-6.fc36.src >>> fwupd-efi-0:1.2-1.fc36.src >>> pesign-test-app-0:5-26.fc34.src >>> sbsigntools-0:0.9.4-7.fc36.src >>> shim-unsigned-aarch64-0:15-1.fc28.src >> >> Noted, thanks. I'll file a dnf bug and not abandon it. > > This is not a bug in dnf. > > And, when you do --whatrequires gnu-efi{,-devel}, it translates to: > --whatrequires gnu-efi gnu-efi-devel > > But you really need to use: > --whatrequires gnu-efi --whatrequires gnu-efi-devel > > $ repoquery -q --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi gnu-efi-devel > gnu-efi-devel-1:3.0.11-7.1.fc36.noarch > > $ repoquery -q --repo=rawhide{,-source} --whatrequires gnu-efi --whatrequires > gnu-efi-devel > efitools-0:1.9.2-6.fc36.src > fwupd-efi-0:1.2-1.fc36.src > gnu-efi-devel-1:3.0.11-7.1.fc36.noarch > mokutil-2:0.5.0-1.fc36.src > pesign-test-app-0:5-26.fc34.src > sbsigntools-0:0.9.4-7.fc36.src > shim-unsigned-aarch64-0:15-1.fc28.src I don't see how you can claim that it's not a bug. If it's invalid, dnf should *tell me that*, not generate garbage. If it doesn't group with the --whatrequires, then there's an extra argument, and it needs to say so.

I may be interested in picking this up. I've been doing some UEFI dev work on Fedora. Let me take a look at the package and let you know in a day or two or three. Anything I should watch out for if I do decide to pick this up?