[Pkg-xen-devel] [PATCH 1/9] Rework "debian/rules: Do not try to move EFI binaries on armhf"

[Diederik de Haas]

On vrijdag 17 juli 2020 07:39:45 CET Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> This reverts commit 8ff478af61fa8a87806a89bbd618cd9da2354302.

In that commit Ian made an explicit exemption for armhf. Unfortunately the 
commit doesn't explain why the exemption was made, which is a problem imo.
But if you're going to revert a commit, you (also) need to have a reason why 
you're reverting it. 
"Reason for commit X no longer applies because of Y, thus revert commit X"

Can you explain why it needs to be reverted? (and make that part of your 
commit message)

> ---
>  debian/rules | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
> index b21c9e6948..29a561b99f 100755
> --- a/debian/rules
> +++ b/debian/rules
> -		*) mv $t/usr/lib64/efi/* $t/boot/. ;; \
> +	find "$t/usr/lib64/efi" -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -print0 | xargs -r -0
> mv -t "$t/boot"

I like that you're quoting the arguments, shellcheck would approve :)

> a move command which fails if the move fails, but succeeds if no files are
> moved

That's the stated reason for why you changed a 'mv' with 'find'+'xargs'+'mv'. 
'find' and 'xargs' are part of the 'findutils' package, which should then also 
be added to the Build-Depends.
What I don't know is *why* the simple 'mv' would/could fail.
When that's because the directory doesn't exist, couldn't that also be fixed by 
"if [ -d "$t/usr/lib64/efi/ ] ; then" ?
I think that would also be more efficient.

Diederik
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-xen-devel/attachments/20201202/f75d30ea/attachment.sig>