On 13:12 Mon 09 Feb 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 11:59:59PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > >
> > > http://ifup.org/git/?p=acl-attr-dev.git;a=summary
> > > git clone git://ifup.org/philips/acl-attr-dev.git
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > I believe it's a good start; we probably want to merge the trees
> > eventually.
> > The way how you have moved libmisc breaks the tarballs though; I have fixed
> > it. Also, I was surprised that your repository has all the history
> > rewritten
> > instead of merging Christoph's trees, so I redid the merge.
>
> I think the merge is a bad idea. attr and acl serve quite
> different purposes and have been different source and binary packages in
> distros forever.
They can remain different binary packages after merging the source code
repos to share libmisc.
> I'd rather keep it as it was for now and maybe find
> some way libacl could pick up libmisc from libattr.
>
> There's a reason we split up xfs-cmds into more manageable
> repositories.
What was the reason for splitting these two packages from each other?
>From looking at the shortlogs it looks like a lot of the bug fixes are
made against attr then copied over to acl:
http://ifup.org/git/?p=acl-attr-dev.git;a=shortlog
> I'd rather keep it as it was for now and maybe find
> some way libacl could pick up libmisc from libattr.
Perhaps. Although, it doesn't seem right making walk_tree or the quoting
code available to applications through libacl.
Cheers,
Brandon
|