Comment 2 for bug 1956768

Thanky Yuang-Chen,
I first thought "Uh this request is a bit scarce", but I agree since this is just a source split that should be fine.

Reference: Original MIR https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fwupd/+bug/1536871
Build logs:
https://launchpadlibrarian.net/578322379/buildlog_ubuntu-jammy-amd64.fwupd-efi_1%3A1.1-3_BUILDING.txt.gz
https://launchpadlibrarian.net/578829290/buildlog_ubuntu-jammy-amd64.fwupd_1.7.1-1ubuntu3_BUILDING.txt.gz

And yeah, this change was driven by upstream and the packaging follows their guidance, see:
https://github.com/fwupd/fwupd/releases/tag/1.6.0
https://github.com/fwupd/fwupd-efi#16x-and-newer
d/rules of fwupd correctly has `-Defi_binary=false `

The new Dependency is:
src:fwupd has bin:fwupd -> bin:fwupd-unsigned of src:fwupd-efi

We also see in component mismatches
https://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/component-mismatches.html
that it will also autopromote fwupd-unsigned-dev - that has just the pkgconfig and no other dependencies so that is safe (no action needed).

I checked the packages:
- some binaries moved: fwupd-*signed-template
- there are new binary packages fwupd-unsigned, fwupd-unsigned-dev.

Functionally that is ok, Source really just moved. The old `plugins/uefi-capsule/efi` is what became `efi/` in the new source package.

None of the hard show stoppers that we check for are violated, it really is just a package split.
d/rules is a bit complex, but that is common on low level code.

MIR team ack to promote binaries fwupd-unsigned + fwupd-unsigned-dev in Jammy.
Subscribing archive-admins.