linux-kernel - RE: [ANNOUNCE] exfatprogs-1.0.2 version released

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <000001d619c7$d32434c0$796c9e40$@samsung.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Apr 2020 08:35:08 +0900
From:   "Namjae Jeon" <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
To:     "'Eric Sandeen'" <sandeen@...deen.net>
Cc:     "'Hyunchul Lee'" <hyc.lee@...il.com>,
        "'Sedat Dilek'" <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
        "'Goldwyn Rodrigues'" <rgoldwyn@...e.de>,
        "'LKML'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCE] exfatprogs-1.0.2 version released

> On 4/23/20 3:49 AM, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > This is the second release of exfatprogs since the initial version(1.0.1).
> > We have received various feedbacks and patches since the previous
> > release and applied them in this release. Thanks for feedback and patches!
> >
> > According to Goldwyn's comments, We renamed the project name from
> > exfat-utils to exfatprogs. However, There is an opinion that just
> > renaming the name is not enough. Because the binary names(mkfs.exfat,
> > fsck.exfat) still are same with ones in current exfat-utils RPM package.
> >
> > If that's real problem, We are considering a long jump with 2.0.0 when
> > adding repair feature.
> >
> > Any feedback is welcome!:)
> 
> Just my $0.02 - I think you need to keep the binary names the same, this is a very common naming
> convention that other software may depend on.  At least xfstests certainly expects that the
> "exfat.$FOO" naming convention is there, and that "exfat" is used consistently across utilities,
> module names, statfs and blkid output etc.
Okay, I will keep them.
And he is saying that the version of mkfs/fsck.exfat in exfatprogs should be higher than
the version 1.3.1 of mkfs/fsck.exfat in current exfat-utils package to reduce the confusion of
old users. For this reason, it confuses me whether it makes sense to significantly increase the version.
So I'm thinking about raising the version to 2.0.0 when the big feature like repair comes in.
> 
> Personally I think it would be sufficient for distribution packages to set the equivalent of a
> "Conflicts: exfat-utils" in the exfatprogs package so that they cannot be installed simultaneously?
> The devil is in the details on packaging but there are usually packaging tricks if we need to replace
> or exclude one package with another.
Oh, there's a way.
Thanks for your opinion!
> 
> Thanks,
> -Eric
> 
> > The major changes in this release:
> >  * Rename project name to exfatprogs.
> >  * label.exfat: Add support for label.exfat to set/get exfat volume label.
> >  * Replace iconv library by standard C functions mbstowcs() and wcrtomb().
> >  * Fix the build warnings/errors and add warning options.
> >  * Fix several bugs(memory leak, wrong endian conversion, zero out
> > beyond end of file) and cleanup codes
> >  * Fix issues on big endian system and on 32bit system.
> >  * Add support for Android build system.
> >
> > The git tree is at:
> >
> > https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=f7b9f8ba-aa6aa104-f7b873f5-0cc47a31
> > ba82-14a9f1852cdf3dd6&q=1&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fexfatprogs%2Fex
> > fatprogs
> >
> > The tarballs can be found at:
> >
> > https://protect2.fireeye.com/url?k=35b018cd-68634173-35b19382-0cc47a31
> > ba82-7c9ab2990d663462&q=1&u=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fexfatprogs%2Fex
> > fatprogs%2Freleases%2Ftag%2F1.0.2
> >