Alex Romosan <romo...@caliban.lbl.gov> wrote: Hi,
>> ACL are required, and that's all. ConsoleKit already requires ACL >> support and the standard Debian kernel has ACL enabled. If you don't >> use the standard kernel, now would be a good time to review your >> custom kernel configuration. > > as long as they are still made optional in the kernel configuration i > don't see how they could be required by anything. It's not optional as far as Debian is concerned, and that's what matters here. >> No, it's not a better approach. The change is intentional and fixes >> real issues. See the changelog and the associated bug reports. > > at the very least you could fallback to chmod/chown if setfacl fails. This breaks other things, so it's not an option. > silently failing is not a good thing in general. as for the changelog, > the only thing i see is 'try using ACLs for USB scanners in an effort to > deconflict with MFP devices.' added on Wed, 16 Feb 2011 which is not > very informative. See #588300 and #591767. Anyway, the ACLs are there to stay. JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <jbla...@debian.org> Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
