[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: master fails to build on FreeBSD when ACL support is on

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: master fails to build on FreeBSD when ACL support is on
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 17:52:34 +0200

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
>  address@hidden
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 22:52:02 -0800
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Why doesn't copy-file (or qcopy_acl?) use acl_errno_valid, as we do in
> > set-file-acl?  Is there a reason for this inconsistency?
> set-file-acl is documented to return t on success, nil on ordinary failure, 
> and 
> (this part is undocumented) it signals an error on a serious failure. 
> acl_errno_valid is used to decide whether the error is serious.
> copy-file simply signals an error on failure; its return value is 
> undocumented. 
> So it doesn't have the three possibilities that set-file-acl has.

I didn't mean to change the API, I meant to ask why doesn't copy-file
use acl_errno_valid, and if that says the error just means ACLs aren't
supported in this case, silently gives up on copying ACLs?  The return
value doesn't need to change.  We use set-file-acl when we need a more
fancy copying, which we do in Lisp, so why not in the primitive?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]