MX Linux Forum

I noticed that hardinfo2 is the same version in debian backports and mx repo, but the latter pulls in a lot more dependencies. Is this correct behavior? I figured it was best to mention since MX isos are built with hardinfo2 included.

dreamer wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 6:36 am I noticed that hardinfo2 is the same version in debian backports and mx repo, but the latter pulls in a lot more dependencies. Is this correct behavior? I figured it was best to mention since MX isos are built with hardinfo2 included.

yes.

debian installs recommends by default, so sometimes we set up hard depends since we do not install recommends by default.

I do agree, suggest to take those recomments from the backports hardinfo2 package : So user can decide whether they really need/want fwupd.
Also fwupd runs a daemon, at least I don't want this, so for now I have removed hardinfo2.
iperf is currrently in Suggests, maybe fine.
The other are already installed, so doesn't hurt to have them in Recomments also.
Can we do this? @Stevo

So just move fwupd back to Recommends?

There's an update that's not in Debian yet: https://hardinfo2.org/news Note the cool little packaging status repology widget at the bottom.

2.2.7 update packages with fwupd back as recommended can be downloaded early here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/104D-Qn ... sp=sharing

Stevo wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 3:58 pm So just move fwupd back to Recommends?

There's an update that's not in Debian yet: https://hardinfo2.org/news Note the cool little packaging status repology widget at the bottom.

fwupd is probably the most “critical” program in that list, which perhaps not every user wants. So thank you.

Could you test the new version so we can move it to main?

Tested on two hardware PCs. All looks good.

Stevo wrote: Tue Feb 04, 2025 9:46 pm Could you test the new version so we can move it to main?

Works here. thanks.

Nice. Since it also works fine for me, I'll ask for it to move to main.