Re: review of guillem/next/d-m-h-root

2020-05-01 Thread Guillem Jover
On Wed, 2020-04-29 at 11:52:54 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:28:08AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > > Thanks! I notice this is susceptible to directory traversals. I've > > amended it and added comments in the attached version. I'm thinking > > I'll need to add unit tests

Re: review of guillem/next/d-m-h-root

2020-05-01 Thread Helmut Grohne
Hi Guillem, On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:28:08AM +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Thanks! I notice this is susceptible to directory traversals. I've > amended it and added comments in the attached version. I'm thinking > I'll need to add unit tests to cover for this among other similar > issues. I

Re: review of guillem/next/d-m-h-root

2020-04-29 Thread Guillem Jover
Hi! On Sun, 2020-04-19 at 07:34:18 +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > you asked me to review your next/d-m-h-root branch. Thanks for the review! > This is what I found: > > * Diagnostic messages tend to include DPKG_ROOT. Is that a useful thing >to do? I think not including DPKG_ROOT would be

review of guillem/next/d-m-h-root

2020-04-19 Thread Helmut Grohne
Hi Guillem, you asked me to review your next/d-m-h-root branch. Thanks to all who've worked on this! I've looked at the two commits as one diff (12961967a563..6aa3bf8f98b8) without attributing individual hunks to the respective authors. This is what I found: * Diagnostic messages tend to