Omar Polo <op@openbsd.org> [2021-12-10, 15:13 +0100]:
> Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> writes:
>
>> On 2021/12/10 09:50, Omar Polo wrote:
>>> Timo Myyrä <timo.myyra@bittivirhe.fi> writes:
>>>
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Pekwm got new minor release containing fixes. It adds a new
>>> > configuration option which allows us to remove local doc patch. With quick test
>>> > seems to be working ok here on amd64.
>
> Thanks, committed!
>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Just one curiosity, now there are only two remaining patches and they're
>>> both for pledge, has anybody tried to upstream those? They seem in a
>>> good shape for being merged, but I don't see anything on github. I'm
>>> missing some bit of history here?
>>
>> personally I prefer it if pledge patches aren't upstreamed unless
>> upstream is actively running and testing with OpenBSD, we can easily
>> end up in the situation like with i3 where we have to patch to remove
>> them again.
>
> I didn't know about the i3 case, I agree completely then. The two
> patches are also small and not a burden.
>
> (also, if upstream is actively running and testing with OpenBSD chances
> are that we don't need to add pledge patches in the first place ;-)
I'm not too keen on sending the pledge support upstream as it is now. I
haven't done any deep analysis on the pledge, just thought a reasonable
set of privileges it needs and slapped that around the main loop and
tested it still worked. I was mostly interested on limiting the
networking stuff away. I think a more in-depth pledging would be needed
for it to be upstreamed and it should be monitored and updated as
development goes on.
Timo
No comments:
Post a Comment