[ciphershed] Re: #if 0
- From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 10:53:49 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 7/1/2014 10:34 AM, Jason Pyeron wrote:
>>>> On 6/30/2014 8:14 PM, Jason Pyeron wrote:
>>>>> Should we fix code in these blocks or strip them form the
>>>>> code base?
>>>>
>>>> I find them informative. We could rip them at the first
>>>> major rewrite, where I hope we can replace the E4M code.
>
> 100% (unless licensed in a permissive way) of the code has to be
> replaced, but I am curious do we "know" which parts are from E4M?
Every file with E4M code has a clear copyright header stating as much.
The code style in these files is consistent, and different from the
non-E4M code, lending further evidence that the header copyrights are
accurate. We also need to replace all the TrueCrypt Foundation
licensed code eventually, so any leakage of E4M code that might have
occurred between files will get replaced then.
>>>
>>> Then I will fix the sprintf calls inside the if 0 blocks too.
>>
>> Seriously, I would not bother fixing the sprintf calls in code
>> we're going to replace anyway. Instead of putting time into
>> fixing it, I'd
>
> I become more familiar with the code this way. A complete re-write
> will take some time, and minor edits like this help bridge the
> gap.
>
> Sprintf is used in a few files (greped):
>
> src/Common/Cmdline.c src/Common/Dlgcode.c src/Common/Language.c
> src/Common/Random.c src/Common/Registry.c
> src/Common/SecurityToken.cpp src/Common/Tcdefs.h
> src/Common/Volumes.c src/Core/Unix/Linux/CoreLinux.cpp
> src/Format/InPlace.c src/Format/Tcformat.c
> src/Main/Forms/EncryptionTestDialog.cpp src/Mount/Hotkeys.c
> src/Mount/Mount.c src/Setup/ComSetup.cpp src/Setup/SelfExtract.c
> src/Setup/Setup.c src/Setup/Wizard.c
>
>> rather work on replacing it. The rebranding patch looks good to
>> me as-is. I'd prefer to move on to build automation and
>> testing.
>
> I am also working on tests as I go.
+1 for tests as you go! Also +1 for becoming more familiar with the
code. Why don't we start these changes as part of the next release?
These fixes belong in the release that addresses the audit's
short-term recommendations. I would still like to have this release
by late summer if possible.
We should have a branch on the github/ciphershed/ciphershed repo for
this branch. I feel pretty strongly that we should not continue
editing the code for the initial rebranding release, as this will
delay the short-term fix release.
>>
>> I think we should talk about a set of release tasks.
>
> I have windows command line building working here already (1st step
> since I ssh to my windows box), I am trying to get a mechanism to
> build/test from git branches on windows(32/64) and linux(32/64).
Excellent! What do I need to do to duplicate this?
Bill
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/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=w3Sh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Other related posts:
