Gordon Steemson wrote: > While I was originally provoked to attempt work in this area because "why > won't libacl compile?"
The answer to this question is: libacl is a library for POSIX ACLs. Its public API is such that it cannot handle the other types of ACLs, that exist on other platforms than Linux. [1] A platform-independent API is necessarily higher level; the one in Gnulib is more-or-less platform-independent. It's also a mistake to think that libacl is "the Linux ACLs library": It does not (and is not meant to) handle NFS ACLs on Linux. [1] > This has got me thinking - a lot of stuff that just "uses libacl if it's > present" really ought to be using the gnulib equivalent, which as you point > out already covers those cases and many more besides. The trouble is, how do > you persuade dozens of projects to try it the more general way? You can tell them that the Gnulib modules for ACLs provide - support for other platforms than Linux, - support for ACLs on NFS mounts on Linux. Bruno [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2022-11/msg00023.html
