Re: [Libguestfs] SELinux relabeling: do it by default

On 05/10/22 13:10, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 12:09:38PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> One thing to note is that libguestfs itself does not *consume* the >> particular "common" contents that it generates. Therefore we don't have >> a reference loop in practice. What we have is this dependency graph: >> >> libguestfs (generator) >> | >> v >> libguestfs-common (generated content) >> / \ >> v v >> guestfs-tools virt-v2v >> >> Because of that, the usual "update common submodule" hunk *need not* be >> squashed into the libguestfs (generator) patches, when merging this. >> However, said "update common submodule" hunk does have to be squashed >> into the (single) guestfs-tools and virt-v2v patches, when merging. > > To be clear, while there isn't a separate "update common submodule" > commit in libguestfs, the commit hash of libguestfs -> common > submodule *will* still change (in the same commit that changes the > generator)? I'll merge the libguestfs-common patch set, and the libguestfs patch set, in unspecified order. Then there *will* be a separate commit in libguestfs that updates the submodule reference. It's just that this change will be an entirely stand-alone commit -- the submodule update hunk need not be squashed into any of the other -- actual patch -- libguestfs commits.

In other words, in the git history, there will be two stages where the generator will output such content under "common" that actually differs from the then-checked-out submodule content -- but that's fine, because libguestfs itself does not "consume back" the same content. So this (temporary) difference is harmless. For guestfs-tools and virt-v2v however, the difference is not tolerable. Therefore, in each of those superprojects, I will extend the one patch for that superproject, with the submodule update. So that the submodule checkout and the dependent code advance in sync. > I looked at the patches through the mailing list archives and > everything looks fine to me so you might as well push it all. If > there are any problems I'm sure we'll find out soon enough. Thanks! > > For the whole series: > > Acked-by: Richard W.M. Jones <rjones(a)redhat.com&gt; > > (You don't need to add this because I guess it will mess up your > carefully curated git commit hashes!) I will add it -- first because I have to extend the guestfs-tools and virt-v2v patches for merging, like described above, anyway; second, I need to be prepared for libguestfs-common moving forward mid-review in any case. (I shouldn't expect actual conflicts, but the commit hash of the HEAD could change.) I'll report back with the actual commit ranges.