Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 06:26:58 +0100 From: Mariusz Zaborski <oshogbo@freebsd.org> To: cem@freebsd.org Cc: src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r325062 - in head/lib: . libcasper libcasper/libcasper libcasper/services libcasper/services/cap_dns libcasper/services/cap_dns/tests libcasper/services/cap_grp libcasper/services/cap_g... Message-ID: <CAGOYWV-_8_FKfA%2BU87DRa8N%2B1eNT6R5r_UNgCEHwwbA1Agq6Bw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAG6CVpWTDRYodBBimiOZLgHNpVbZPbm7hVakAh85Dh7TgZFdYQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201710281923.v9SJNvE5021346@repo.freebsd.org> <CAG6CVpWTDRYodBBimiOZLgHNpVbZPbm7hVakAh85Dh7TgZFdYQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 29 October 2017 at 01:49, Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Mariusz Zaborski <oshogbo@freebsd.org> = wrote: >> Author: oshogbo >> Date: Sat Oct 28 19:23:57 2017 >> New Revision: 325062 >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/325062 >> >> Log: >> Introduce caspermocks. >> >> The idea behinds mocks is that we don't need to ifdef a lot of code in >> tools itself but those defines are hidden in the casper library. >> Right now the mocks are implemented as define/inlines functions. >> There was a very long discussion how this should be implemented. >> This approach has some advantages like we don't need to link to any ad= ditional >> libraries. Unfortunately there are also some disadvantages for example= it is >> easy to get library out of sync between two versions of functions or t= hat we >> need extra define to compile program with casper support. >> This isn't an ideal solution but it's good enough for now and should s= implify >> capsicumizing programs. This also doesn't close us any other ways to d= o those >> mocks and this should evolve in time. >> >> Discussed with: pjd, emaste, ed, rwatson, bapt, cem, bdrewery >> Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D8753 > > It's worth pointing out "discussed with" here very much does not mean > "approved by" =E2=80=94 several of the people mentioned above raised conc= erns > with this approach and only one person explicitly supported the > change. Sorry for my in precision, Approved by: pjd, emaste, ed, rwatson Discussed with: pjd, emaste, ed, rwatson, bapt, cem, bdrewery Like I mention in a commit log there were some concerns. This is also the reason why I wouldn't commit it with only one 'go for it'. Thanks, Mariusz > > Best, > Conrad
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGOYWV-_8_FKfA%2BU87DRa8N%2B1eNT6R5r_UNgCEHwwbA1Agq6Bw>