|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [PLUG] Moving a lot of user accounts
|
> Devil's advocation:
Yea!
Sorry, I made a mistake, in my last post:
s/2.4.19/2.4.20/g
I forgot the exact time that xfs went into stable. It's NOT in 2.4.19, but
it is in 2.4.20 out of the box. From patch-2.4.20:
#include <linux/xfs_fs.h>
xfs_trans_stop(handle);
-void presto_xfs_journal_file_data(struct inode *inode)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 02:19:05PM -0500, Fred K Ollinger wrote:
> > OK, I'll bite. The first reason, that shame on you for thinking that this
> > is all going to get done w/o people who care participating. If you want ls
> > to have acl, the source is there, add it.
>
> No it isn't. Not for Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, Irix, BSD/OS...
> What makes you think we're talking specifically about Linux here?
Poor assumption on my part. <joke>plug == philadelphia _linux_ users
group</joke>. :)
> The whole point is that this needs to be the same cross-platform. In
No argument. I guess I'm a bit linux-centric.
> point of fact, if Linux (specifically, if Red Hat) kernels shipped
> with a file system that supported ACLs and the NFS implementation
> supported them (maybe it does; it's mandatory for NFSv3, I think),
> then my specific circumstance would work, between Solaris and Linux.
> But there are *way* more possibilities out there than that
> combination.
No doubt. I'm still waiting till ufs gets write perms in linux. It has had
it, but it says, "dangerous". Incidentally, Gabriel, do you know a method
of mounting ufs in linux? I tried to mount an OpenBSD part, and it worked,
but it didn't read the disk label so
ls /bsd
gives no output. I know I'm missing something disklabel related here, but
I don't know what.
> > > Why haven't they bothered to support them?
> > >
> > > Because the code hasn't been touched since about 1980.
> >
> > Again, from coreutils:
> >
> > 2002-10-05 Jim Meyering <meyering@lucent.com>
> >
> > A bit different from 1980, but then this was a joke, I know.
>
> Swell. GNU ls(1) didn't EXIST in 1980, to the best of my knowledge.
No, IIRC, GNU came into being after 1983. I was being wise.
> William (whom you neglected to cite, incidentally; tsk tsk ;^>) was
I am a bit heavy-handed in snipping, but I didn't mean to slight anyone.
I'll work on my netiquette.
> speaking towards the (originally central, though now diaphorous)
> Unix source for ls(1). And he didn't mean "hasn't been touched"
> literally, but that the basic internal functioning hasn't changed in
> that time. And that's true of GNU ls(1) too.
I was joking, but my comment about acl being included stands. I don't
think it would take someone w/ no-how much to get this to work. Hell, you
could put a wrapper in front of getfacl and this would work properly, a
bit o' shell, then move ls to ls.old. :)
> > "Linux", meaning RedHat, will have acls as soon as linux (kernel) 2.6
> > comes out.
>
> Maybe I missed that press release. Where are you getting that
> information?
I made it up based on:
1. there are ext2 and ext3 patches in 2.5 right now for acls
2. RedHat has almost always shipped the latest kernel after adding even
more patches.
When linux-2.6 comes out, RedHat will ship and and in it they will be
shipping acls. There's probably a 3rd party rpm out right now, acl
utilities are all ready packaged for debian, I apt-getted it all ready.
Point being that acls are coming in the linux world, ready or not.
> And what does "have ACLs" mean... that they'll be supported in ext2
> and ext3? Or that Red Hat will default to a file system other than
> ext2 or ext3 in order to have them? (The latter seems pretty
No. If you us xfs, you have acls all ready. If you look at the changelog
for 2.4.20, you will find out that, while not all distros compile it in by
default, it's there in the _stable_ source.
However, if you use ext3, it's not there in the stable source as has been
pointed out to me. Patches for 2.4 exist now. There are all ready acls in
2.5.59.
> unlikely... they've got a stated policy of sticking with ext. Stated
> to me--and quite a few of the rest of you--by a Red Hat tech whose
> name escapes me who came through with the Red Hat Road Tour.)
I'm not doubting it. Here we go w/ wildly defs of what rh means. I guess
to you it means "as dictated by Durham" that's probably most common. To
me, you can get rh distros right now w/ other filesystems one of which has
acls right now.
So if you mean, binary-packaged by RedHat incoporated, then "no they don't
have acls". As you know, I'd rather get into technical specifics rather
than worry about what company X "officially" supports, which is one of the
reason that rh discussions annoy me.
Here's an xfs installer for the linux distribution based on rpms that's
copmpatable in every way w/ RedHat except it has the extra feature, an xfs
fs:
ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/download/Release-1.1/installer/installer/i386/
> > As far as stability, I don't know, but the xfs filesystem has been around
> > for longer than linux.
>
> That says very little about the stability of its integration with
> the Linux kernel, though.
I agree, also.
Summary:
1. RedHat Inc doesn't support acls. If you go by a RHCE, then acls
probably don't exist in linux.
2. As of linux Kernel 2.4.20, xfs was incorporated into the stable Linux
kernel. Some distros are behind for some reason and don't have this, but
installers for nearly every distro for xfs are not available.
3. acls for linux are coming (can I mean gnu/linux kernel when I say
linux? I need a word for RedHat based distro that is compatible with the
distro put out by RedHat incorporatated, can rh, in my posts mean this?
And if I want to mean distro given the stamp of approval by Durham, I will
say redhat. Clear?)
4. It's unknown which distros will "officially" support acls, which, to
me, is a boring question anyway. If I want acls in linux, I can. I have
had them for a great while.
5. OpenBSD won't have acls until 2013, was this announced? :) Sorry
Gabriel.
Sorry about the misinformation, I was in a hurry and _I_ had 2.4.19 (and
2.4.18 w/ xfs), but it wasn't in Marcelo's stable tree (2.4) until 2.4.20.
Next time, I'll do my homework before spouting off like that.
Fred Ollinger
_________________________________________________________________________
Philadelphia Linux Users Group -- http://www.phillylinux.org
Announcements - http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug-announce
General Discussion -- http://lists.netisland.net/mailman/listinfo/plug
|
|