Re: [Bug-tar] adding ACLs when there are none

[Joerg Schilling]

Pavel Raiskup <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 05, 2014 05:06:06 Linda A. Walsh wrote:
> > Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> > > Or could you give an example?  What *exactly* do you expect the --acls
> > > should behave by default?  Combine existing acls in parent directory
> > > (default acls) with the stored in archive?
> > >
> > > Thanks, Pavel
> > >
> > -----
>
> > If the SetGid bit is set on a directory on linux, it is usually
> > propagated to lower lower level dirs to permit a particular type of
> > access to be propagated to  lower level files and dirs.
>
> The _default_ seems to be matter of taste.  Looking at how the SetGid
> works in GNU tar, the bit is inherited from parent by default (no
> additional option passed).  But when you specify '-p' option, then the bit
> is not inherited as you want (the permissions stored in archive have a
> priority).  I would rather take --acls similarly to -p in this regard.

This does nit seem to be correct.

The BSD sgroup bit on directories only propagates to directories and not to 
files. The default acls propagate to files also.

Note that the bevior in star has been defined in 2001 after talking to various 
people. gtar should behave similar.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:address@hidden (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       address@hidden                (uni)  
       address@hidden (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily