> The "at least in Linux" qualification worries me.
> Having a very quick look at the qset_acl() code suggests it clears ACLs on
> some platforms at least, which chmod_or_fchmod() does not.
> Am I reading that wrong?
You are right.
The question is - why do we need to clear ACLs?
The only real exa
On 2023-01-08 22:38, Ondrej Valousek wrote:
Not sure if I understand what you talk about.
Qset_acl() is not copying any ACLs.
How it could affect the code change we do to the qcopy_acl()? There is no
change there...
Well, perhaps I'm just misunderstanding the code.
023 10:04:19 PM
To: Ondrej Valousek ; 60...@debbugs.gnu.org
<60...@debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#60620: [PATCH] copy.c: replace set_acl() with chmod_or_fchmod()
On 06/01/2023 15:23, Ondrej Valousek wrote:
> This patch replaces set_acl() funclion call with chmod_or_fchmod()
> Both fu
Monday, January 9, 2023 12:18:59 AM
To: Ondrej Valousek ; 60...@debbugs.gnu.org
<60...@debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#60620: [PATCH] copy.c: replace set_acl() with chmod_or_fchmod()
On 2023-01-08 11:20, Ondrej Valousek wrote:
> No, these two changes are (from the functional point of vi
37 AM
To: Ondrej Valousek ; 60...@debbugs.gnu.org
<60...@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)
+
On 06/01/2023 15:23, Ondrej Valousek wrote:
This patch replaces set_acl() funclion call with chmod_or_fchmod()
Both functions works (AFAIK) the same way (at least in Linux) so should be
possible.
Using chmod_or_fchmod would also help us to reduce dependency on libacl
(see the forthcoming patch t
ysg>
From: Paul Eggert
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2023 12:53:37 AM
To: Ondrej Valousek ; 60...@debbugs.gnu.org
<60...@debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#60620: [PATCH] copy.c: replace set_acl() with chmod_or_fchmod()
On 2023-01-06 07:23, Ondrej Va
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 fo
This patch replaces set_acl() funclion call with chmod_or_fchmod()
Both functions works (AFAIK) the same way (at least in Linux) so should be
possible.
Using chmod_or_fchmod would also help us to reduce dependency on libacl
(see the forthcoming patch to qcopy-acl.c from Gnulib).
Ondrej
---
src/
