Hi Laslo On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 02:59:56PM +0100, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 19:40:02 -0800 > Michael Forney <mfor...@mforney.org> wrote: > > Hey Michael, > > > In the description of 3111908b034c73673a2f079b2b13a88c18379baa, it > > says that the functions must be able to handle st being NULL, but > > recurse always passes a valid pointer. The only function that was > > ever passed NULL was rm(), but this was changed to go through recurse > > in 2f4ab527391135e651b256f8654b050ea4a48f3d, so now the checks are > > pointless. > > have you tested this patchset extensively? I hate to admit that the > recursor-subsystem is probably the most fragile part of sbase and > really need more feedback on these patches by more people (Silvan, have > you had the chance to test this?).
Sadly, I have not :/ I just did some very basic testing using the following directory structure. testdir/ testdir/testdir2 testdir/testdir2/testB.txt testdir/testdir2/testA.txt testdir/link (symbolic link) testdir/test1.txt testdir/test2.txt I used the recursive options of tar, chgrp, chmod, chown, du and rm after applying Michael's patch on these files/directories and everything worked as expected. Ideally, somebody that uses sbase in a development system regularly should apply and test the patches further. Cheers, Silvan > Cheers > > Laslo > > -- > Laslo Hunhold <d...@frign.de> >
