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
Pavel Raiskup wrote:
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?
Leaving default acls in the dir
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
-
Sorry, didn't finish that thought...If there are default acls set
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
-
Pavel Raiskup prais...@redhat.com 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
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
