[Libguestfs] SELinux relabeling: do it by default

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 05/10/22 13:10, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 12:09:38PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:

>> One thing to note is that libguestfs itself does not *consume* the
>> particular "common" contents that it generates. Therefore we don't have
>> a reference loop in practice. What we have is this dependency graph:
>>
>>   libguestfs (generator)
>>             |
>>             v
>>   libguestfs-common (generated content)
>>        /              \
>>        v               v
>>    guestfs-tools     virt-v2v
>>
>> Because of that, the usual "update common submodule" hunk *need not* be
>> squashed into the libguestfs (generator) patches, when merging this.
>> However, said "update common submodule" hunk does have to be squashed
>> into the (single) guestfs-tools and virt-v2v patches, when merging.
> 
> To be clear, while there isn't a separate "update common submodule"
> commit in libguestfs, the commit hash of libguestfs -> common
> submodule *will* still change (in the same commit that changes the
> generator)?

I'll merge the libguestfs-common patch set, and the libguestfs patch
set, in unspecified order.

Then there *will* be a separate commit in libguestfs that updates the
submodule reference. It's just that this change will be an entirely
stand-alone commit -- the submodule update hunk need not be squashed
into any of the other -- actual patch -- libguestfs commits.

In other words, in the git history, there will be two stages where the
generator will output such content under "common" that actually differs
from the then-checked-out submodule content -- but that's fine, because
libguestfs itself does not "consume back" the same content. So this
(temporary) difference is harmless.

For guestfs-tools and virt-v2v however, the difference is not tolerable.
Therefore, in each of those superprojects, I will extend the one patch
for that superproject, with the submodule update. So that the submodule
checkout and the dependent code advance in sync.

> I looked at the patches through the mailing list archives and
> everything looks fine to me so you might as well push it all.  If
> there are any problems I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

Thanks!

> 
> For the whole series:
> 
> Acked-by: Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com>
> 
> (You don't need to add this because I guess it will mess up your
> carefully curated git commit hashes!)

I will add it -- first because I have to extend the guestfs-tools and
virt-v2v patches for merging, like described above, anyway; second, I
need to be prepared for libguestfs-common moving forward mid-review in
any case. (I shouldn't expect actual conflicts, but the commit hash of
the HEAD could change.)

I'll report back with the actual commit ranges.

Thanks!
Laszlo