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(a)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.