This makes a lot more sense; we can parse a firmware and export the same XML
we would use in a .builder.xml file. This allows us to two two things:
* Check we can round trip from XML -> binary -> XML
* Using a .builder.xml file we can check ->write() is endian safe
This allows us to 'nest' firmware formats, and removes a ton of duplication.
The aim here is to deprecate FuFirmwareImage -- it's almost always acting
as a 'child' FuFirmware instance, and even copies most of the vfuncs to allow
custom types. If I'm struggling to work out what should be a FuFirmware and
what should be a FuFirmwareImage then a plugin author has no hope.
For simple payloads we were adding bytes into an image and then the image into
a firmware. This gets really messy when most plugins are treating the FuFirmware
*as* the binary firmware file.
The GBytes saved in the FuFirmware would be considered the payload with the
aim of not using FuFirmwareImage in the single-image case.
The end year is legally and functionally redundant, and more importantly causes
cherry-pick conflicts when trying to maintain old branches. Use git for history.
The FWUPD_INSTALL_FLAG_FORCE flag has really unclear semantics, and ignoring a
file CRC, checksum or model ID should only be done when using fwupdtool actually
debugging a plugin or firmware parser.
Use the existing --force flag when we want a "gentle nudge" like reuploading
previously processed reports.
I misunderstood the original specification, and it seems even USB-hub-less
devices have the same header location as their "write-through" counterparts.
