[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: libacl
|
From: |
Bruno Haible |
|
Subject: |
Re: libacl |
|
Date: |
Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:18:07 +0100 |
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