Hi Dimitri, Thank for you for applying these and uploading an update.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 02:13:34PM +0100, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > On 18 September 2017 at 19:12, Nicholas D Steeves <nstee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Dimitri, > > > > List of patches against 4.12-1 is at the bottom. Please apply them > > before merging 4.13. In particular this is essential for 0001. While > > I don't use Ubuntu, let's prioritize getting this package into great > > shape before 18.04's final merge from Debian! > > > > > > >> > M 0002-Ignore-.pc-the-quilt-state-tracking-dir.patch > > > > >> > * I read that this is supposed to be standard in dgit repos > > > > >> > > > > >> True, but upstream tarball ships .gitignore, and i'd rather not patch > > > > >> upstream .gitignore =/ > > > > > > > > > > In that case, lets submit the patch upstream? I'd be happy to, if > > > > > you're busy > > > > > > > > possibly. > > > > > > Should I submit this patch upstream or wait for you to? > > > > I have not yet submitted this one upstream. So I'll go ahead and submit this trivial patch? > > > > If you prefer to pull from a git remote, pull from the > > proposed-pre-4.13-1 branch of https://github.com/sten0/btrfs-progs.git > > > > [I]mportant, [N]ormal, [O]tional > > I 0001-Remove-orphaned-files-that-no-longer-exist-upstream.patch > > * These look like they will cause problems if not removed :-/ > > I do not see these as orphaned at all. I see them shipped in the > upstream tarball. Ah, I think I see what happened. Upstream .gitignore and/or dgit <-> git interroperation weirdness is preventing my git branch that tracks your dgit remote from properly updating them...strange, because my upstream branch updates them with every release, as does my master branch. > > O 0002-Move-all-binaries-back-to-sbin-Closes-786893.patch > > * Given that /sbin is for administrator programs and /bin for user > > ones, /bin suggests these programs are for regular users. Without > > this patch I believe you will start to receive bug reports like the > > following -> tldr users can create subvols but cannot remove > > them...or even list them. > > https://mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg67879.html > > https://mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg67912.html > > moving a binary to /sbin does not prevent non-cap_sys_admin user > calling it and creating subvolumes...... True, but /sbin -> /bin was to close #770806 right? The premise of #770806 was that btrfs is that /?bin/*btrfs* are intended for use by normal users. Where is the evidence to support this? Would you please address: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786893#41 and https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=786893#42 Cheers! Nicholas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
