[Bug 218556] Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556





------- Additional Comments From mhalcrow at us.ibm.com  2007-02-06 19:02 EST -------
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> 1. Your version scheme seems a bit odd. Is there any reason why you
> do major integer releases every time? Now that 9 is out it's hard to
> go to a more traditional 'work toward a stable 1.0', but it might be
> worth considering just minor bumps for minor changes?

I have considered using the dot notation in the version, but there is
no notion of ``major'' and ``minor'' releases in our development and
release cycle for the mount helper code. There will never be an
``experimental'' or ``beta'' branch of the code. The feature set is
complete as-is for what is available in the kernel, and the current
version is suitable for general release and use in production
environments; adding extra characters into the version string would
really provide no useful information. The mount helper is small and
simple enough that I just can't justify maintaining multiple
branches. The only other versioning scheme I might consider would be
YYYYMMDD (which we did use for a while in the very early snapshot
releases), but I prefer to minimize the number of characters used to
express the version. In all cases, I recommend using the most recent
release in any deployment of the mount helper code, regardless of its
version number.

> 3. The 2.6.19 kernel in fc6 updates has the ecryptfs module, so here
> should be support for this in fc6 with the updated kernel at
> least. Not sure how we are going to require that however. Wonder if
> we can do a 'Requires: ecryptfs.ko'.

Then there is the case where the user builds his kernel without module
support. I think the approach should be the same as with packages that
only support specific kernel features, such as CIFS. I looked over the
SAMBA spec file, and nothing jumped out at me as a kernel module build
dependency.

I ran several tests eCryptfs on x86_64 with kernel-2.6.19-1.2895.fc6
and ext3 as the lower filesystem, and I did not get any errors on
unmount.

In response to comments #17 and #18, I have updated the SPEC file and
have generated an updated source RPM. Except for an extra comment in
the README, the source tarball remains unchanged.

Source RPM:

http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils-9-1.src.rpm

SPEC file:

http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ecryptfs/ecryptfs-utils.spec

Thanks,
Mike

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.