From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE7601FF141 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2026 14:52:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BA07E1BBCE; Mon, 16 Mar 2026 14:52:19 +0100 (CET) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: Fabian =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH docs 2/2] firmware-updates: add group header to fwupd.conf In-Reply-To: <1768488092.j2n0p8hpzt.astroid@yuna.none> ("Fabian =?utf-8?Q?Gr=C3=BCnbichler=22's?= message of "Thu, 15 Jan 2026 15:42:21 +0100") References: <20251229133920.40752-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> <20251229133920.40752-2-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> <1768488092.j2n0p8hpzt.astroid@yuna.none> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 13:52:15 +0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1773669095558 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.116 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2 0.001 Average reputation (+2) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: 3F5EP4733BPPLPQNRJ6KUKJMEZJ22LRR X-Message-ID-Hash: 3F5EP4733BPPLPQNRJ6KUKJMEZJ22LRR X-MailFrom: m.sandoval@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: Proxmox VE development discussion X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler writes: > On December 29, 2025 2:39 pm, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: >> After creating a new config file, either as daemon.conf or fwupd.conf >> with the same contents as the example prior to this commit, the >> following error will be seen when starting fwupd.service: >>=20 >> Failed to load daemon: failed to load engine: Failed to load config: fai= led to load /etc/fwupd/fwupd.conf: Key file does not start with a group >>=20 >> Since there are potentially multiple groups, adding this at the end of >> the file might result in the key added to the wrong group. The file is >> also not present by default, so creating it without the header will also >> lead to issues. On the other hand, adding the group multiple times is >> not an issue. >>=20 >> Please see `man 5 fwupd.conf` for more details. >>=20 >> Signed-off-by: Maximiliano Sandoval >> --- >> firmware-updates.adoc | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>=20 >> diff --git a/firmware-updates.adoc b/firmware-updates.adoc >> index 9ca4b6e..b9ca47e 100644 >> --- a/firmware-updates.adoc >> +++ b/firmware-updates.adoc >> @@ -57,6 +57,7 @@ mount point of the EFI partition in `/etc/fwupd/fwupd.= conf`, for example: >>=20=20 >> .File `/etc/fwupd/fwupd.conf` >> ---- >> +[fwupd] >> # Override the location used for the EFI system partition (ESP) path. >> EspLocation=3D/boot/efi > > does this still work/did you actually test this change? > > AFAIK, fwupd now requires udisk to lookup the ESP, it is no longer > possible to override this: > > https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D6654 You are right, it does not work. Would it be OK to remove the following from the documentation ``` That means you must explicitly configure the correct mount point of the EFI partition in `/etc/fwupd/daemon.conf`, for example: .File `/etc/fwupd/daemon.conf` ``` for now? --=20 Maximiliano