On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:32 AM, James Youngman wrote:
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 11:59 AM, David Bartley
> wrote:
>
>> I considered this. There are at least 3 different variants of ACL's
>> (POSIX, NFSv4 and MacOS X) and they are generally incompatible. UMich
>>
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, having GNU 'ls' (and maybe later GNU 'chmod') use the
> platform's native syntax for ACLs does not allow the user to use the
> same commands on different platforms, and does not allow for platform
> independent scripts.
I cons
-- David
From 2b81cf5a5eb32c5e500c892fd1178aef624bded5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Bartley
Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 03:29:22 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Add ability to print acl's from ls
* src/ls.c: Add ability to print acl's from ls.
---
src/ls.c | 81 +
2009/5/6 Pádraig Brady :
> I can see this causing compat issues?
eglibc claims to be source compatible with GNU libc so hopefully there
shouldn't be any compatibility issues.
> http://blog.aurel32.net/?p=47
> Is there anything we could/should do to avert it?
Replace Ulrich ;) This fork obviously
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> It is pretty much clear that after removing all ACLs,
> 'func_test_has_acl tmpfile0 no' will work. The point of this test here is
> whether it's possible to remove the 'mask' part of the ACL only. If
> 'setfacl -x mask: tmpfile0' leads to an er
d FreeBSD (I don't have access to a MacOS
X box).
From ec1d3584775aa3a1ea6e5d5300864edeea57b739 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Bartley
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 22:05:58 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Fix test-file-has-acl on FreeBSD.
---
ChangeLog |6 ++
tests/test-file-
lt acl set).
-- David
From 906d2bb2eb7ae6e5c055f63c44f82a24641d17f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Bartley
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 18:34:06 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] Bug fixes in acl module.
* lib/acl_entries.c: Correctly check return of acl_get_entry.
* lib/file-has-acl.c: Likewise.
* lib/set-
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> David Bartley wrote:
>> I've attached updated patches that hopefully
>> address your and Bruno's concerns.
>
> Looks quite fine. Only a couple of minor points:
>
> - m4/priv-set.m4 should do an AC_REQUI
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> David Bartley wrote:
>> The following patches for coreutils and gnulib add a new Solaris 10
>> privilege module as previously suggested [1].
>
> Hi David,
>
> Thanks for following through.
> Are you up to the tas
Hi Jim,
The following patches for coreutils and gnulib add a new Solaris 10
privilege module as previously suggested [1].
-- David
[1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2009-03/msg00123.html
From e67022be8d312fec0fa7619c65b9070171041c4c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: David Bartley
00:00 2001
From: David Bartley
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 13:10:17 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Add restore_unlink_dir function for restoring PRIV_SYS_LINKDIR on Solaris.
---
ChangeLog |7 ++
lib/unlinkdir.c | 56 --
lib/unlinkdir.h |6 +++
ished by
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. */
-/* Written by Paul Eggert and Jim Meyering. */
+/* Written by Paul Eggert, Jim Meyering, and David Bartley. */
Hi,
I've encountered a bug in tar on OpenSolaris (possibly present in
Solaris 10 and others). I have a tarball that contains a setuid binary
(usr/bin/passwd). When I untar it as root, I see the following error:
tar: usr/bin/passwd: Cannot change mode to r-sr-sr-x: Not owner
Running this under tr
13 matches
Mail list logo
