Re: sed suggestion: selinux context based on symlink when using -i

[Jakub Martisko]

Hi,

Jim's last patch seems to work for me as expected.

Jakub


On 11.12.2017 10:25, Jakub Martisko wrote:
> Hi, any updates?
> 
> On 28.11.2017 14:06, Jakub Martisko wrote:
>> As promised, here is the patch. Comments/suggestions are
>> welcomed.
>>
>> Jakub
>>
>> On 23.11.2017 14:26, Jakub Martisko wrote:
>>> Hi and thank you for your reply, I'll try to provide a
>>> complete patch as soon as I identify the correct entry for
>>> the NEWS file.
>>> As for the --follow-symlinks option - unpatched version
>>> fails at the first grep in the attached test script (and
>>> succeeds at the second one), while the patched version
>>> passes both. I hope this is the expected/wanted behaviour.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Jakub
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22.11.2017 17:26, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 3:23 AM, Jakub Martisko <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>> On 11.1.2017 09:19, Jakub Martisko wrote:
>>>>>> First of all, congratulations and thanks for the GNU sed 4.3
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now to the main topic. There was a suggestion (see the
>>>>>> discussion in [1]) to change how the sed handles the selinux
>>>>>> context when working with symlinked files when using the -i
>>>>>> option. It was suggested that the context should be based on
>>>>>> the link instead of the target file itself. Patch that
>>>>>> changes this behavior was also proposed and is attached to
>>>>>> this message. Any thoughts about this suggestion?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Jakub
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. I hope that his is a correct list where to post this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401442
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for reporting that and for taking the time to prepare a patch.
>>>> Are you interested in making it a complete patch?
>>>> Since it is a bug fix, the patch should add an entry in the NEWS file.
>>>> Each bug fix also deserves regression tests: tests that fail before
>>>> and succeed after the patch is applied.
>>>> Will this patch have to take into account whether the
>>>> --follow-symlinks command-line option is specified? (haven't looked
>>>> yet)
>>>> If so, then there should be in-place tests that exercise this, both
>>>> with and without that option.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, for each bug fix, we try hard to identify the released
>>>> version in which the bug was introduced (mention that in NEWS), and
>>>> the actual commit (mention that in the commit log for the patch).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again for the report and patch.
>>>> No obligation on your part to do any of the above.
>>>> Just outlining what's required, in case you're inclined.
>>>> If you don't do it, someone else will.
>>>>
>