* Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > to optional, but that would probably break something.) Thus, I am > soliciting input about whether this is something people would like to > see. The advantage is better support for acl's in debian (which will be
I'd definitely like to see it. I think this is definitely functionality
we should have. I assume these core utils will work with 2.2.x, 2.4.x,
etc cleanly? Perhaps that's more a question about the libacl packages
but I'm not really worried just want to be very sure this won't break
anything. :)
> Another possibility would be an optional coreutils-acl package or
> somesuch, but I don't particularly like the idea of diversions or
> alternatives or complex dependency structures for ls et al.
I really don't like this idea. Just invites trouble imv.
Stephen
pgpxq86d0dqbe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
