[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Blake) wrote: ... > Hmm - murky waters here. It would be a simple one-line fix to > coreutils/lib/acl.c to ignore EBUSY as a non-error, and POSIX has > no requirements per se that a failure of acl() should imply a failure > of ls(1). Should a busy file be conservatively treated as having an > ACL (designated with '+' in the mode string) or left alone without
If acl failing with EBUSY is a reliable indicator that there is indeed an ACL, then using the `+' mark sounds best. It's also a little easier since we wouldn't have to document the meaning of a nonstandard `?'. > one (designated with ' ' in the mode string) when cygwin is unable > to query Windows without blocking for an undue length of time? > Right now, I'm almost leaning for a third option, and displaying '?' > or some other character to mean unable to determine, but that > would be more work (the gnulib library file_has_acl already returns > -1 on failure, 0 on no ACL, and 1 on ACL; perhaps make it return > 2 on indeterminate). Should such a change be propagated to > coreutils and gnulib, or left as a cygwin-local patch? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
