# Re: t/t1304: avoid -d option to setfacl (db82657) 3 messages from 2011-11-18 to 2011-11-29. Participants: Brandon Casey, Scott Parrish, Jeff King. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/28971 ## Brandon Casey, 2011-11-18 05:37 Subject: Re: t/t1304: avoid -d option to setfacl (db82657) Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CA%2BsFfMc6BCPvk1FCjZwyY_pWqXBut3D--OfrFEcfK5p97D-KHQ%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` [cc git@vger.kernel.org since that is the appropriate place for this discusion] On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:59 PM, wsp 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. 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. -Brandon ``` ## Scott Parrish, 2011-11-19 20:28 Subject: Re: t/t1304: avoid -d option to setfacl (db82657) Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/D95BFEA0-BAC1-4CBD-8B56-27DB4BDF147C%40gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` 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 > > 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 ``` ## Jeff King, 2011-11-29 12:23 Subject: Re: t/t1304: avoid -d option to setfacl (db82657) Message-ID: <20111129122333.GB30456@sigill.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20111129122333.GB30456%40sigill.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: ``` On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 03:28:49PM -0500, Scott Parrish wrote: > > 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 ```