[Bacula-devel] [Bacula-devel]Re: Development status of ACL support

[Tim <obe...@we...>]

Hi!

On Fri, 2004-05-28 at 21:05, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> I think it is best that the user specifically request to backup the
> ACLs. This can be handled at a higher level.

Yes, I agree.

> A few questions:
>
> - Are these ACLs on Linux systems?

I'm testing on Linux at the moment. But ACL support is available since Kernel 
2.6.x or (2.4.x with a patch), but it is optional. So I suppose in most 
Distributions ACL support must explicitely activated. This was the case in 
mine (Gentoo Linux) and a few others like Red Hat 9.0, SuSE Linux 9.1 Pro / 
Personal, SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8.

> - Is it easy to detect that they exist or not?

I don't know, but I think it will be easy. I'll check that.

> - Are there any other kinds of ACL systems implemented?

The ACL library implements the abandoned POSIX standard: 
 "IEEE Std 1003.1e draft 17 ("POSIX.1e", abandoned)"

And because, the library itself is ported from FreeBSD I think my code will 
work there too.

> - If libacl does not exist will Bacula link correctly?  If not, we will
>   need some way to automatically detect libacl in configure and set a
>   variable so that they can be #ifdefed off.

No, the code will not link correctly without libacl, so an automatic detection 
is the best way I think. 

Bye,
Tim