Subject: Re: bug#17669: Fwd: Re: Solaris acl woes

From: Pádraig Brady <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:22:36 +0100

On 06/03/2014 07:51 AM, Ben Walton wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2014 6:46 PM, "Paul Eggert" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>
>> [Forwarding this to Bug#17669 as bug-coreutils seems to have misfiled it
> under 17664; closing 17664.]
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:        Re: Solaris acl woes
>> Date:   Mon, 02 Jun 2014 06:56:03 -0700
>> From:   Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
>> Organization:   UCLA Computer Science Department
>> To:     Ben Walton <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
> [email-masked]
>>
>>
>>
>> Ben Walton wrote:
>>
>>> The lib/file-has-acl.c:acl_ace_nontrivial code that returns 1 is:
>>
>>
>> Why is it returning 1, exactly?  What are the value of access_masks[0,
>> 1] and how do they compare to the masks, and what bits are set that
>> shouldn't be if we want the ACLs to be trivial?
> 
> I didn't get back to this yesterday but will tonight.
> 
> What do you think about the fact that the Solaris tools seem to exhibit the
> same behavior?

I'd probably adjust the tests to first:

getfacl test.acl | setfacl -f - test.acl || skip_ "system is unable to copy ACLs"

thanks,
Pádraig