Comment 31 for bug 1716924

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?