This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [ada, build] Ignore cp -p failures during Ada make install
- From: Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
- To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Arnaud Charlet <charlet at adacore dot com>, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 19:12:48 +0200
- Subject: Re: [ada, build] Ignore cp -p failures during Ada make install
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <yddsip1y1ac dot fsf at lokon dot CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE> <297CE3FB-6D47-4D40-A582-9FD99D4AA2BE at comcast dot net> <ydd4n1h5omy dot fsf at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE> <FED62B33-CE0A-4DEC-B218-200AD3B77560 at comcast dot net>
Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> writes:
> On Apr 25, 2014, at 10:01 AM, Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote:
>> Agreed that this is ugly: ACL support in GNU coreutils has long been a
>> total mess; no idea if it has improved very recently.
>
> So, are there ACLs on these files? If so, why? If no ACLs, I fail to see how anything can error out no matter how poorly written it is.
In the ZFS case, there's nothing but ACLs: Unix permissions are just
translated/mapped from them. Copying ACLs between file systems with
different ACL systems (like POSIX vs. NFSv4) is approximate at best.
> What about cp a b && touch -r a b? Seems safer, seem portable enough.
I don't see why this shouldn't work. The Autoconf manual suggests there
are some problems (timestamp resolution) with touch -r, but cp -p is the
same, and no hint that touch -r might not be portable.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University