On 2023-01-08 11:20, Ondrej Valousek wrote:
No, these two changes are (from the functional point of view) independent -
i.e. acl handling will work regardless of the order these 2 are applied.
The only difference is, that once both are applied, we could link coreutils w/o
libacl
If the change quoted below is applied, but the Gnulib change is not,
then ACLs won't be copied. So I don't see how the two changes are
independent.
Zasláno z Outlooku pro Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2023 12:53:37 AM
To: Ondrej Valousek <ondrej.valousek...@renesas.com>; 60...@debbugs.gnu.org
<60...@debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#60620: [PATCH] copy.c: replace set_acl() with chmod_or_fchmod()
On 2023-01-06 07:23, Ondrej Valousek wrote:
- && qset_acl (dst_name, dest_desc, restrictive_temp_mode) != 0)
+ && chmod_or_fchmod (dst_name, dest_desc, restrictive_temp_mode) != 0)
Doesn't this sort of change require the qcopy-acl.c change in Gnulib? If
so, we need to wait for that Gnulib change before installing this
change, right? Otherwise we won't be copying ACLs correctly.
