Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> writes:
> On Apr 25, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de>
> wrote:
>> Agreed that this is ugly: ACL support in GNU coreutils has long been a
>> total mess; no idea if it has improved very recently.
>
> So, are there ACLs on these files? If so, why? If no ACLs, I fail to see
> how anything can error out no matter how poorly written it is.
In the ZFS case, there's nothing but ACLs: Unix permissions are just
translated/mapped from them. Copying ACLs between file systems with
different ACL systems (like POSIX vs. NFSv4) is approximate at best.
> What about cp a b && touch -r a b? Seems safer, seem portable enough.
I don't see why this shouldn't work. The Autoconf manual suggests there
are some problems (timestamp resolution) with touch -r, but cp -p is the
same, and no hint that touch -r might not be portable.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
