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

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Nov 29, 2011, 12:23 UTC
Message-ID: <20111129122333.GB30456@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <D95BFEA0-BAC1-4CBD-8B56-27DB4BDF147C@gmail.com>

On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 03:28:49PM -0500, Scott Parrish wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> > 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?

It's nice if we can auto-detect such things based on behavior, and then there's no need for maintaining a "uname -s" guess. Perhaps we can check at the beginning of t1304 which one works (or neither), and set a flag appropriately? It looks like we already check whether setfacl works at all, so this would be a natural extension.

I started to do a "how about this" patch, but I realized that in order to see whether "-d" worked as "default" versus "delete", we'll have to check the output of "getfacl" to see if it reports the default entry. And then I realized I have no idea what FreeBSD shows in such a case (surely not "d:*", right?).

-Peff