On Wednesday 13 December 2006 18:29, Attila Fülöp wrote:
> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > On Wednesday 13 December 2006 16:07, Attila Fülöp wrote:
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> just to dropping into this discussion.
> >>
> >> Kern Sibbald wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday 13 December 2006 08:49, Oliver Lehmann wrote:
> >>> a> Kern Sibbald writes:
> >>>>>> patch-src-findlib-attribs.c
> >>>>>> when restoring a symlink, use lchflags to restore the file flags
> >>>>>> defined for the symlink ("new feature")
> >> This is right, but only part of a bigger problem. FreeBSD, as opposed to
> >> other OSes allows symlinks to have own permissions ACL etc and offers
> >> appropriate syscalls. Specifically this are lchmod, lutimes, lchflags
> >> acs_set/get_link_np.
> >>
> >> I have written a patch witch addresses this issue. So this patch will
> >> interfere with my changes. I would prefer not to have above mentioned
> >> "new feature" in the CVS since this will surely give me conflicts on
> >> next "cvs update".
> >>
> >> I'm in the process of writing the regression scripts for my patches.
> >> Since my patch addresses other stuff (mostly ACL code, and some minor
> >> fixes) and the writing of regression scripts isn't that well documented
> >> this may take some time. Nonetheless I hope to have the testing done
> >> until next Monday.
> >>
> >> I will look into the other new patches this evening to see if they
> >> interfere with my changes and report back tomorrow.
> >
> > I would be very happy if you will provide a patch. However, there is
almost
> > zero chance that it will go in before 1.40.0 is released. The only fixes
> > that I am accepting at the moment are important bug fixes that do not
disrupt
> > the code too much.
>
> Yes, I know. We already talked about this.
>
> > I suggest you simply pull down the new file after I have
> > integrated the patch and adjust your code to work with it. This is,
> > unfortunately, something that developers must do quite often.
>
> Well that is actually what I was trying to avoid, but such is life ;-).
>
> > Concerning all these differences on FreeBSD: if the changes needed to
make
> > things work correctly on FreeBSD are extensive and require a bit of
> > #ifdefing, we are going to have to re-think how we do it. The code is
> > already a bit messy and adding more non-standard system dependent code
will
> > push it over my tolerance of messyness. As a consequence, we will need to
> > look at ways of making it cleaner --- e.g. moving some of the code,
possibly
> > the system dependent code into subroutines ...
>
> No, I don't think they are extensive. Just a couple of lines, mainly
> ifdefing chmod/chflags/utime to the 'l' versions.
>
> Sorry I don't have access to the current code right now, since it
> is at home. I will send you a 'preliminary patch' tomorrow, so You
> can peek at it and decide if it is too messy.
>
OK, thanks.
... [snip]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
