On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 06:02:55PM +0100, Florian Stinglmayr wrote:
> Michael's patch is very nice and should definitely make it in.
>
> Yet after speaking with upstream the other day it was made very clear to
> me that upstream wants the patch in their repository. Since my upstream
> patch requires a change in configure.ac (and thus a rerunning
> autoreconf) I don't want to put it in ports. So my plan is:
Great!
> 1. Use Michael's patch until upstream releases a new version.
> 2. Send Michael's patch upstream.
> 3. Wait for new version.
> 4. Update port, remove old patches.
>
> Attached below is the git patch that will go upstream. I'd appreciate
> any feedback.
Some feedback below.
> diff --git a/src/main.c b/src/main.c
> index 4d0e623..1551c0d 100644
> --- a/src/main.c
> +++ b/src/main.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,12 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) {
> int workers_len;
> int num_cores;
>
> +#ifdef HAVE_PLEDGE
> + if (pledge("stdio rpath proc exec", NULL) < 0) {
Can you use the standard convention == -1? It's (almost?) universally
checked that way. Makes it easier to spot errors when everything is
consistent.
> diff --git a/src/options.c b/src/options.c
> index 6bc5b18..bcd452e 100644
> --- a/src/options.c
> +++ b/src/options.c
> @@ -600,6 +600,12 @@ void parse_options(int argc, char **argv, char
> **base_paths[], char **paths[]) {
> }
> }
>
> +#ifdef HAVE_PLEDGE
> + if (opts.skip_vcs_ignores && pledge("stdio rpath proc", NULL) < 0) {
This is a minor nit, but almost every other one is "if (pledge(".
> +#ifdef HAVE_PLEDGE
> + if (pledge("stdio rpath proc", NULL) < -1) {
This will never happen. It should be == -1.
