Subject: Re: bug#60620: [PATCH] copy.c: replace set_acl() with chmod_or_fchmod()

From: Ondrej Valousek <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2023 19:20:54 +0000

No, these two changes are (from the functional point of view) independent - i.e. acl handling will work regardless of the order these 2 are applied.
The only difference is, that once both are applied, we could link coreutils w/o libacl

Zasláno z Outlooku pro Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, January 8, 2023 12:53:37 AM
To: Ondrej Valousek <[email-masked]>; [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
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)
> +          && 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 for that Gnulib change before installing this
change, right? Otherwise we won't be copying ACLs correctly.