On 06/03/2014 07:07 PM, Ben Walton wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2014 11:22 AM, "Pádraig Brady" <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> On 06/03/2014 07:51 AM, Ben Walton wrote: >> > On Jun 2, 2014 6:46 PM, "Paul Eggert" <[email protected] >> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> [Forwarding this to Bug#17669 as bug-coreutils seems to have misfiled it >> > under 17664; closing 17664.] >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> >> Subject: Re: Solaris acl woes >> >> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 06:56:03 -0700 >> >> From: Paul Eggert <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> >> Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department >> >> To: Ben Walton <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>, >> >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>, >> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Ben Walton wrote: >> >> >> >>> The lib/file-has-acl.c:acl_ace_nontrivial code that returns 1 is: >> >> >> >> >> >> Why is it returning 1, exactly? What are the value of access_masks[0, >> >> 1] and how do they compare to the masks, and what bits are set that >> >> shouldn't be if we want the ACLs to be trivial? >> > >> > I didn't get back to this yesterday but will tonight. >> > >> > What do you think about the fact that the Solaris tools seem to exhibit the >> > same behavior? >> >> I'd probably adjust the tests to first: >> >> getfacl test.acl | setfacl -f - test.acl || skip_ "system is unable to copy >> ACLs" >> > > Not a bad idea, but those tools have different names on different systems and > possibly different calling conventions. > > If this is a preferred approach, at the very least, a presence check for the > binary needs to wrap the precondition.
We already have that in require_acl_ Though yes it's very awkward that there is no standard here. This is how one copies ACLs on the systems I've just checked: solaris: getfacl file1 | setfacl -f - file2 linux: getfacl file1 | setfacl --set-file=- file2 freebsd: getfacl file1 | setfacl -b -n -M - file2 So not ideal at all. Which 6 tests did this affect BTW? thanks, Pádraig
