Re: [PATCH v2] util/grub-mkrescue: use capitalised paths for removable EFI images

[Thomas Schmitt]

Hi,

now that i know how to test grub-mkrescue out of the git clone, i also
gave your patch v2 a run.

Its mail form seems to be problematic:
- Alpine shows two leading blanks in the context lines instead of one.
  Empty context lines show no leading blank. Long lines show intermediate
  line breaks (which is a normal behavior for alpine).
- But running the blob in your raw mail body through "base64 -d" yields
  the same, including the surplus line breaks.
- In https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2024-06/msg00101.html
  the changed -/+ line pairs are shown merged to single lines. Blanks are
  missing there.
- After removing the surplus blanks, inserting the missing ones, and
  merging lines, i still don't get the second hunk through "patch -p1 -b"
  until i insert
    @@ -818,11 +818,11 @@ main (int argc, char *argv[])
                                  imgname);
  after
           make_image_fwdisk_abs (GRUB_INSTALL_PLATFORM_LOONGARCH64_EFI,
                                  "loongarch64-efi",
                                  imgname);
  (One may blame this on my limited patch knowledge which is inviting
   witchcraft.)

Now patch works in the current git clone with these messages:
  patching file util/grub-mkrescue.c
  Hunk #1 succeeded at 767 (offset -2 lines).
  Hunk #2 succeeded at 790 with fuzz 2 (offset -2 lines).
  Hunk #3 succeeded at 818 with fuzz 1.

Compiling works without complaints.

I successfully built grub-mkrescue and tested ISO production with
   platform={efi,pc} x target={i386,x86_64}

The "efi" test runs used the xorriso options which would have caused a
failure with the patch v1. (I tested yesterday that it indeed would
happen with the ISO/HFS+ file name change if not the option was changed
accordingly.)
The ISOs of all 4 runs showed the expected boot lures. I did not test
whether they actually boot, though. It would not help too much, because
in the end the most hunchbacked of the really existing firmwares decides
about the usability of the names.


So half a "Tested-by:" for the patch ...
and a "Boooh !" towards your mail program.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas