Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:16:21 -0700 From: Stephen Kiernan <hackagadget@gmail.com> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg@juniper.net>, cem@freebsd.org, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r335402 - head/sbin/veriexecctl Message-ID: <CAEm%2B2uXc6fQ9cVxN7E%2BQ39RWYUsKtYgKuOgyoo%2B4bGxGFM_7XA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201806201342.w5KDgMeS040038@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <sjg@juniper.net> <96021.1529475664@kaos.jnpr.net> <201806201342.w5KDgMeS040038@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018, 6:42 AM Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> wrote: > In message <96021.1529475664@kaos.jnpr.net>, "Simon J. Gerraty" writes: > > Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > First and foremost: nothing is actually signed, anywhere. The > > > > The signing of manifests is external. The veriexecctl tool is I assume > > a straight copy of what's in NetBSD (I've not looked at it in at least a > > decade). > > If this is correct, should it not be imported into the vendor branches > first? > It's not a straight copy. But much of it is from the NetBSD version. > What are the criteria to import through the vendor branches v.s. direct > import into HEAD? Do I fail to understand a missing piece of > information or is there an inconsistency? > I asked about it at BSDCan 3 years ago and pointed people my github branch (before review was created) to get opinions on what to do about it (vendor or directly put it in sbin) and the consensus was to submit it the way I did. -Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAEm%2B2uXc6fQ9cVxN7E%2BQ39RWYUsKtYgKuOgyoo%2B4bGxGFM_7XA>