[pkg-cryptsetup-devel] Bug#585496: Bug#585496: Bug#585496: cryptsetup: replace check scripts by new versions

[Christoph Anton Mitterer]

On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 15:50 +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> thanks, i've applied some changes to the check scripts in svn trunk,
> please take a look. unfortunately (as written in the previous mail),
> your scripts are cluttered. these scripts really should be as simple as
> possible, and the code in most cases is obvious enough that
> documentation isn't required.
Wow it's really strange how you refuse to simply use
well-documented/tested code as is... especially for such a security
sensitive package where strict documentation should be considered to be
a must, and where uncertainties and doubts are killers.

Especially as really no one is harmed by such documentation,...


> all of these are applied, take a look at the svn trunk.
well...
- You still use sed for no reason I can see
- Not sure whether you check e.g. for the availability of blkid which is
nearly guaranteed to be there, but not for whether the device exists is
readable and a block device.


> > Other changes I've made:
> > - No longer check for the existence of blkid (this should be always there as util-linux
> >   is essential/required).
> kept this one.
Is there a special reason? If not I don't see how this fits your usual
arguments when rejecting my code, about dropping unnecessary
documentation and/or safety-checks.


> checks aren't supported in cryptroot at all so far. feel free to provide
> a patch,
Well.... I guess it's not to difficult to do this for you :),... any I
guess my patches would be rejected anyway (and I do currently not
consider to change my coding style ;) )

With respect to my replacements for the check scripts:
> given that it is kept simple, small
I guess they were even simpler as the previous versions, not only
regarding the stuff I've dropped (sed/dd/etc), but also regarding how to
read the code e.g. splitted up the "compelex" boolen expressions in the
if-statements to simpler expressions with a nested if-statement.
Apart from that, the code was basically identical.


> and uses common coding
> style.
Uhm,.. that's the coding and documentation style used throughout many
manpages, all POSIX,... so it's not that uncommon, is it?


> vol_id check scripts don't need to be
> depreciated. either one still has vol_id from udev available, or one
> doesn't.
Don't understand this... I thought vol_id was completely dropped from
udev, thus it should be generally not available starting with everything
post lenny?!


Cheers,
Chris.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3387 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-cryptsetup-devel/attachments/20100616/807b3349/attachment.bin>