Merge lp://staging/~tyhicks/ecryptfs/lp1597154-packaging into lp://staging/ecryptfs

Tyler,

Reading through the code, everything looks solid.

I also (synthetically) tested your proposed postinst script using `sudo dash ecryptfs-utils.postinst configure` on an appropriately configured system with an NVMe drive on which I first deliberately unset bit 63, and it worked fine. Your postinst script likewise worked fine when running it again after bit 63 was already set. (Although note that I didn't yet test using a built package with this change, with all the real-word mechanics of the postinst script being called in exact the circumstance that it would be for normal users.)

There are a few small issue I found with https://www.shellcheck.net/ (within the code added by this merge) that should probably be addressed eventually, but nothing that I consider deal breaking.

Finally, thanks for your comment about keeping ecryptfs-utils.postinst and ecryptfs-setup-swap in-sync. A very smart call there, in my opinion.

As soon as there's a package in xenial-proposed, I'll put this change through its paces in a 100% real-world scenario.

-Jason

I didn't realize that we didn't have a corresponding postinst snippet for un-marking those as swap partition; I did that in the vivid SRU (http://launchpadlibrarian.net/205003673/ecryptfs-utils_107-0ubuntu1_107-0ubuntu1.1.diff.gz), was that lost during merge?

Either way, thanks for bringing it back, and adjusting it for nvme!

Thanks for the reviews.

@Jason I fixed up a couple of the shellcheck warnings before merging.

@Martin Yes, it looks like your postinst snippet for vivid was lost. The way that new upstream eCryptfs releases are cut and uploaded to Ubuntu makes this a possibility for any packaging changes that are not upstreamed to lp:ecryptfs. :/

@pitti, it would be great if, when you upload to Ubuntu, you also
proposal a merge against lp:ecryptfs, so that we don't lose track of
it. I try to stay on top of non-maintainer uploads, and pull those
back upstream, but occasionally these get missed. Thanks!

Dustin Kirkland
Ubuntu Product & Strategy
Canonical, Ltd.

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:03 PM, Tyler Hicks <email address hidden> wrote:
> Thanks for the reviews.
>
> @Jason I fixed up a couple of the shellcheck warnings before merging.
>
> @Martin Yes, it looks like your postinst snippet for vivid was lost. The way that new upstream eCryptfs releases are cut and uploaded to Ubuntu makes this a possibility for any packaging changes that are not upstreamed to lp:ecryptfs. :/
> --
> https://code.launchpad.net/~tyhicks/ecryptfs/lp1597154-packaging/+merge/299605
> Your team eCryptfs is requested to review the proposed merge of lp:~tyhicks/ecryptfs/lp1597154-packaging into lp:ecryptfs.