On Fri, Oct 10, 2003 at 12:48:49AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 10:19:46PM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > > > If I use unionfs as the ``base'' for the jail then every directory seems > > > > to be automagically owned by the person that mounted it (i.e. root). > > > > This causes me problems for stuff like mailspool, etc. I think this is > > > > the way unionfs works though, not an issue I am personally having. > > > > > > Ah, neat ... I'd never noticed that before ... its never affected anything > > > as far as I've experienced though, but we don't unionfs mount /var, as > > > there is a bug in unionfs dealing with sockets that mounting /var causing > > > the server to crash repeatedly ... > > > > See..that's just what I'm talking about. Software that "works fine as > > long as you remember not to do X, Y or Z, which will crash the system" > > is what is called "not production quality". Advocating that users > > (which are not the same as testers, or developers) use it anyway on > > their production systems is irresponsible. > > Shooting down ppl that are willing to test and report bugs is equally as > irresponsible though, and I've been seeing alot of that ...
Okay, so you're changing the topic (we were talking about users, not testers). > I don't remember whom it was that did it, but I remember a bunch of > PRs closed recently with the 'big scary warning' as the excuse for > ignoring the PRs ... the bugs that the reports revolved around > haven't gone away, but someon felt taht since ppl are warned against > using it, that those that do shouldn't be filling up GNaTs with PRs > about it ... You acknowledge that you are aware of the opinion of a lot of the developers that many of the bugs in unionfs are systemic and are impossible to fix without a rewrite of much of the kernel. There just isn't a lot of value in having GNATS full of reports of impossible-to-fix bugs in known-buggy software. People who report such bugs often need to be reminded of the realities: firstly, that what they have run into is the documented, expected behaviour; and secondly that they should not expect it to be fixed any time soon. The appropriate solution is to suspend the PR with a note to this effect. Kris
Description: PGP signature