@pmatilai commented on this pull request.

> +         rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, "fsverity not supported by file system for 
> %s\n",
+                  path);
+           break;
+       case EOPNOTSUPP:
+           rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, "fsverity not enabled on file system for %s\n",
+                  path);
+           break;
+       case ETXTBSY:
+           rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, "file is open by other process %s\n",
+                  path);
+           break;
+       default:
+           rpmlog(RPMLOG_DEBUG, "failed to enable verity (errno %i) for %s\n",
+                  errno, path);
+           break;
+       }

Returning FAIL here will fail the package install (which isn't pretty, but 
sometimes necessary). The exact semantics of when its okay to ignore failure 
are case-dependent and subject to debate and often practical experiences too. I 
think it's unreasonable to expect getting this 100% right from the go, consider 
this feedback more of a guideline than specific demands: silencing and/or 
ignoring an error should always be an exception to the rule.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
Rpm-maint mailing list

Reply via email to