merging acl-dev and attr-dev [was: Re: [patch 0/4] attr: test/ improvements and integrate with make]

[Brandon Philips <brandon@ifup.org>]

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

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs