On Mon October 3 2011 13:09:21 Jim Meyering wrote:
> Kamil Dudka wrote:
> > On Mon October 3 2011 12:45:01 Jim Meyering wrote:
> >> Can you describe how to make "ls -L" misbehave without this patch?
> >
> > if you have a symlink to a file with ACL, 'ls -Ll' does not print the '+'
> > at end of the column with permission bits.
>
> Thanks. I expect to add something like this:
>
> $ touch k; setfacl -m user:${USER}:r k; ln -s k s; env ls -Log s
> -rw-r-----. 1 0 Oct 3 13:07 s
>
> That "." is wrong. It should be "+".
I am having problems finding a good way to detect that ls is capable
of detecting ACLs. AFAIK there is no such macro in config.h. The
preprocessor games in lib/file-has-acl.c are overly complicated.
What about the following scenario?
1. try ls -l directly on a regular file with ACL, check if it prints '+'.
2. if it succeeds, try the same on a regular file and a symbolic link
with/without -L
Kamil
