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

From: Paul Eggert <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2023 15:18:59 -0800

On 2023-01-08 11:20, Ondrej Valousek wrote:
> 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

If the change quoted below is applied, but the Gnulib change is not, 
then ACLs won't be copied. So I don't see how the two changes are 
independent.

> 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.
>