Re: gvfs patch to remove lsof dependency [review D56224]

Guido Falsi wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> As subject states I have prepared a patch to gvfs that removes the need 
> to have lsof installed, replacing its usage with fuser(1), which is 
> included in the base system. [1]
> 
> I was moved into doing this after lsof broke (again) on head.
> 
> There is a single use of lsof in gvfs, for which the port forces any 
> desktop machine to depend on lsof. So I think this could be a very good 
> improvement for our ports tree, removing this extra dependency, for a 
> very single and minor use.
> 
I also thought of looking for where lsof is used; good job for finding it.
> I also sent the patch upstream [2], so if anyone has contacts there and 
> can push for it or at least get some feedback that would be very helpful!
> 
> Anyway, I am usually against diverging from upstream, but in this case I 
> think the advantages are strong enough to warrant an exception.
> 
> So I'm asking if anyone from gnome@ could approve this change.
> 
On first read it looks fine, but not approving yet. More general 
comments here, any specifics about port changes in phab.
> [1] https://reviews.freebsd.org/D56224
> 
> [2] https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gvfs/-/merge_requests/321
> 
Upstream will get to it when they get to it. Looks $life is why 
everything since the last commit hasn't been actioned yet, let alone 
this merge request.

I would like upstream's feedback on how you structured the meson option. 
It could turn out that they may want to make the fuser(1) method 
default. More importantly, the testing pipeline ran on the merge request 
is still against lsof; I would like to see the results of it ran against 
fuser(1), both our variant and Linux's.

-- 
Charlie Li
...nope, still don't have an exit line.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

wnsEABYIACMWIQTHxcCLnAXo3rFg6k7P+1cn7slqBAUCad/d8QUDAAAAAAAKCRDP+1cn7slqBAkZ
AP482vjnp/8inVq1qYUFasjLDvbYc5asyRErcKg3+K8B3gD9Gn/sfZGxF1/lXvhkmxCh2shXlaFI
UhHIazR3M/rx5g8=
=x21E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----