Hello Linda, On Tuesday, March 04, 2014 15:38:22 Linda A. Walsh wrote: > Pavel Raiskup wrote: > > > When --acls option is on (regardless of tarball contents or > > tarball format), we should explicitly set OR delete default ACLs > > for extracted directories. Prior to this update, we always > > created arbitrary default ACLs based standard file permissions. > > > ---- > Why would tar create any acls if there are none in the source tar?
I was not clear in the sentence probably, please read that like: Set (if these default ACLs are also in archive) OR delete them (because these may already be inherited from parent directory default ACLs). -- When you pass --acls, you want to have extracted files exactly as stored in the archive (from the ACLs perspective). If I read correctly, in ACLs compatbile world — no-ACLs means that you know that you don't want ACLs to be used. > I saw someone else have a similar complaint about acls being created > when the tar didn't have acls but the --acls option was used. Isn't that exactly the reason for 7fe7adcbb9 commit? Prior to that commit, *default* ACLs were created. From `man acl`: OBJECT CREATION AND DEFAULT ACLs The access ACL of a file object is initialized when the object is created with any of the creat(), mkdir(), mknod(), mkfifo(), or open() functions. If a default ACL is associated with a directory, the mode parameter to the functions creating file objects and the default ACL of the directory are used to determine the ACL of the new object: > I wouldn't want a non-acl containing tarball to overwrite or change > default acls in a directory that already exists. > > If I said --acl=reset or similar, that might be a desirable feature. These are IMO candidates for omitting --acls option, no? 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