[Pkg-xen-devel] [PATCH 16/19] Rework "debian/rules: Do not try to move EFI binaries on armhf"

[Hans van Kranenburg]

On 7/17/20 7:39 AM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> What is actually needed

for what?

> is a move command which fails if the move
> fails (i386/amd64, the EFI files were created, but the move failed), but
> succeeds if no files are moved (armhf, no EFI files are created).  A
> combination of find/xargs matches this.
> 
> This reworks commit 8ff478af61fa8a87806a89bbd618cd9da2354302.

I totally agree with the sentiment that the explanation in that commit
is rather useless. From the code change it's rather easily reverse
enginerable: don't do the thing for armhf, but why?

> Signed-off-by: Elliott Mitchell <ehem+debian at m5p.com>
> ---
>  debian/rules | 5 +----
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/debian/rules b/debian/rules
> index e9f334f7d3..75afea0a95 100755
> --- a/debian/rules
> +++ b/debian/rules
> @@ -245,10 +245,7 @@ override_dh_auto_install: $(TEMPLATED_FILES)
>  	esac
>  	:
>  	@# Inexplicably, upstream puts the efi binares in usr/lib64
> -	case $(flavour) in \
> -		armhf) ;; \
> -		*) mv $t/usr/lib64/efi/* $t/boot/. ;; \
> -	esac
> +	find "$t/usr/lib64/efi" -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -print0 | xargs -r -0 mv -t "$t/boot"
>  	:
>  	@# This file contains an arch-specific path and we put it
>  	@# in xen-utils-common, an arch-all package.  But the
> 

Sadly it does not applu and the patch contains
jIEluZXhwbGljYWJseSwgdXBzdHJlYW0gcHV0cyB0aGUgZWZpIGJpbm and such things.

K