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@xxxxxxxxxx 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review