On Thursday 03 April 2003 05:26, Buck Huppmann wrote: > On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 11:09:32PM -0500, Buck Huppmann wrote: > > yes, my bad. sorry. before i throw out more babies with the bathwater, > > though, anybody know if any other systems besides HP-UX and Solaris > > (for default ACLs, at least) require a MASK/CLASS_OBJ when there are > > no non-USER_OBJ/GROUP_OBJ/OTHER entries? > > > > thanks, Eric C., for finding this out > > to wind this up, for anybody who cares, the latest, greatest versions > of this patch are up at http://www.lpmd.org/rsync/ (thanks to John C. > again for hosting) for 2.5.5 and 2.5.6. use at your own risk, but let > me know if you find bugs (so i can mitigate my own risk) > > on the matter of which platforms require masks/CLASS_OBJs, i gave the > samba sysacls.c a quick once over and discerned that, at least for > the mappings as implemented therein, HP-UX, Unixware and Solaris re- > quire CLASS_OBJs, which the new code synthesizes by or-ing all group > and named-user ACEs, as you might expect, in the absence of a source > mask/CLASS_OBJ entry
You should also throw away CLASS_OBJs on those systems which require four-entry ACLs, possibly only the CLASS_OBJ entry's permissions are identical with the GROUP_OBJ permissions. If you don't do, all the files will get extended ACLs on the remote side. On those systems which require the CLASS_OBJs, the CLASS_OBJs are actually meaningless in the four-entry ACL case, anyway. ACLs are a nice disaster. Cheers, Andreas. -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html