[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#60620: [PATCH] copy.c: replace set_acl() with chmod_or_fchmod()

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: bug#60620: [PATCH] copy.c: replace set_acl() with chmod_or_fchmod()
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2023 15:18:59 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2

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 

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 <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2023 12:53:37 AM
To: Ondrej Valousek <ondrej.valousek.xm@renesas.com>; 60620@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.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]