Re: gettext - acl tests - cygwin specific code path
- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 09:37:41 -0400
- From: cyg Simple <cygsimple@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: gettext - acl tests - cygwin specific code path
On 8/22/2018 4:15 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Aug 21 19:57, cyg Simple wrote:
>> On 8/21/2018 4:13 PM, Andrey Repin wrote:
>>> Greetings, cyg Simple!
>>>> During the testing at least one of the tests does `setfacl -m group:0:1
>>>> tmpfile0`. Obviously this gets a 'permission denied' error as group 0
>>>> doesn't exist. What do you suggest for reasonable replacement for 0?
>>> Nothing. Not all systems have a concept of "group 0". Just skip this test.
>> I'm not interested in skipping the test; after all the path for the test
>> is Cygwin specific. It's just not the correct thing to do for the
>> Cygwin specific path. I believe 11 to be the correct test and will
>> pursue that upstream. Marco suggested maybe 544(Administrator) but that
>> doesn't work with a typical user build while doing the same in Linux for
>> root group 0 as a typical user I would need to have elevated privilege
>> in Windows to use 544.
> Exactly as on another system when using group 0. If these tests are
> really only performed on Cygwin, I don't know what the creator intended.
Cygwin is treated specifically to do this instead of that. As I review
more cases of the specifically treated Cygwin I think the tests are old
as setfacl options being used don't exist today.
> Otherwise, if you want to reproduce what the testcase did, you should in
> fact use an admin group.
That depends on the purpose of the test and based on the comments the
testing could use any group. It should also check that the /tmp
filesystem can support ACL as it assumes /tmp to be locally mounted and
skip the testing if not.
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple