On 09/08/10 15:46, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/10/2010 08:12 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> On 10/06/10 14:32, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> On 06/10/2010 07:22 AM, Callahan, Patrick M. wrote:
>>>> if ((errno == ENOSYS || errno == EOPNOTSUPP)
>>>> ...
>>>> You could get in a debugger and determine where
>>>> to add "|| errno == 252" to solve what appears to be
>>>> an HP-UX-and/or-cvfs-specific problem.
>>>>
>> Perhaps just changing to the more general ACL_NOT_WELL_SUPPORTED()
>> for HPUX is appropriate? I.E. could you test the following coreutils
>> patch Patrick?
>>
>> I left the solaris and cygwin code doing the explicit errno checks,
>> but suggest they also change to the more general check too.
>>
>> diff ../gnulib/lib/copy-acl.c gnulib/lib/copy-acl.c
>> --- ../gnulib/lib/copy-acl.c 2010-03-03 11:23:22.000000000 +0000
>> +++ gnulib/lib/copy-acl.c 2010-06-10 14:10:19.000000000 +0000
>> @@ -420,7 +420,7 @@
>>
>> if (count < 0)
>> {
>> - if (errno == ENOSYS || errno == EOPNOTSUPP)
>> + if (ACL_NOT_WELL_SUPPORTED (errno))
>> {
>> count = 0;
>> break;
>> @@ -455,7 +455,7 @@
>> {
>> int saved_errno = errno;
>>
>> - if (errno == ENOSYS || errno == EOPNOTSUPP)
>> + if (ACL_NOT_WELL_SUPPORTED (errno))
>> {
>> struct stat source_statbuf;
>>
>>
>
> I haven't seen any response to this open issue - is this patch still
> okay to apply?
>
Well without an appropriate system to test on I wouldn't apply it,
though it does seem like it would fix the reported issue.
cheers,
Pádraig.
