I have pushed cxlflash 5.0.2669-0ubuntu1~test1 to the earlier PPA for a
test-build. The rename of libcflsh to libcxlflash is acceptable, so I
did that in the version I prepared, although I preferred the former as
usually it's good if the library binary package name corresponds to an
soname. Of course in this case we have bundled many libraries into one
binary package so the binary name doesn't matter so much.

One thing that might be good to get fixed with with versions 5.0.* is that 
there seems to be a binary file present in the tarball that wasn't around in 
earlier versions:
src/build/install/resources/cxl_flash_vm looks like a binary file. It doesn't 
seem to be installed in the current package (which is good), but generally 
binary files in source tarballs are hm, not ideal. I see it was probably 
usually removed through the use of the build/tools/create_tarball script - was 
it not run this time by some chance? Should that binary be included in the 
tarball? Why wasn't it around in the earlier 4.0.* versions?

I see the cxl_flash_vm file is being used by capi_flash script which
seems to be installed in the package. I guess it's not a hard
requirement, right?

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1716924

Title:
  [needs-packaging] [Ubuntu 18.04 FEAT] Include cxlflash package in
  Ubuntu

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu-power-systems/+bug/1716924/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to