Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> writes: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 03:06:17PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote: >> >> Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> writes: >> >> > Anyone see a reason not to commit the patch below? >> > It enables the samba4 "acl" option on operating systems where it is supported. >> >> Not an objection and speaking as just a pkgsrc developer, I wonder if >> you know what the acl option does, and what happens if it is turned on >> and one runs samba on a FS without acls. However, it seems like that >> must be ok, because that list of systems has non-acl filesystems. > I have build and used it that way, but right now it seems like the option > is a no-op and the configure magic always happens, independed of the pkgsrc > option. I don't understand the build system and its configure magic. > > E.g. the bin/smbcacls program is unconditional in PLIST, and probably the > option can just be removed - which makes total sense to me ;-) Looking at the code, the acl option adds CONFIGURE_ARGS+= --with-acl-support I read the configure.in, and --with-acl-support can take yes or no, and it can be empty. But then either it's no and acls are disabled, or it's other than no, it tries. On NetBSD 9, this results in: checking whether to support ACLs... auto configure: checking whether ACL support is available: checking for acl_get_file in -lacl... no checking for POSIX ACL support... no configure: ACL support is not avaliable Overall I conclude that this option is not useful, and that people who set the option and people who don't get the same behavior. Thus I think we should just drop it, letting configure look for acls. If not, we should add --without-acls in the else clause as a bug fix, but I don't think that's helpful.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature