Re: t/t1304: avoid -d option to setfacl (db82657)

[Scott Parrish <wsparrish@gmail.com>]

Hi Brandon,

Thanks for posting my question. I realized shortly after my post to github that I should have posted to the mailing list instead.


On Nov 18, 2011, at 12:37 AM, Brandon Casey wrote:

> [cc git@vger.kernel.org since that is the appropriate place for this discusion]
> 
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:59 PM, wsp
> <reply+c-729354-3460aca0fa61e627f9d1a271cf70a99d5c1e7e4e-921167@reply.github.com>
> wrote:
>> Could this test case be reviewed again? It fails on FreeBSD where the appropriate way to specify default ACL's is with the "-d" option. The "d[efault]:" syntax is invalid on FreeBSD.
> 
> Well, I'm not sure there is a right answer here.
> 
>   Linux accepts -d or "d[efault]"
>   Solaris only accepts "d[efault]"
>   FreeBSD only accepts -d
>   a quick search shows z/OS only accepts "d[efault]"
>   other?
> 
> I think most everything else rolls their own implementation into chmod
> or chacl or something like that.

OS X does indeed roll ACL management into chmod. The test passes there because the prereq isn't met (i.e. the setfacl command does not exist) and thus the tests are skipped.
> 
> The abandoned POSIX draft does actually specify the FreeBSD behavior.
> 
> So I think it's kind of a toss-up.  Which option we choose should
> probably depend on whether we get more test coverage by using the
> "d[efault]" notation or by using the -d option.  That depends on
> whether there are more Solaris users compiling git or whether there
> are more FreeBSD users.  I don't know the answer to that either.  I
> tend to think there are very few of either.

Is there a reason conditional logic can't be used (perhaps keying off of `uname -s` or the like) so that we have coverage in all cases?

-S

> 
> -Brandon
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html