Re: New udeb for libacl and acl? (was Re: Bug#949712: please provide an udeb to be used by rsync-udeb)
Hello everyone, cc'ing Paul Slootman (maintainer of rsync since 2003)
as he might help me here,
For reference, bug log on BTS:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=949712
On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 at 17:29, Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
> Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> (2020-01-26):
> > I'm also not sure whether it would make sense to add also an acl-udeb
> > binary package, which would match for example the attr-udeb one.
>
> Does rsync really depend on libacl in the first place? I'm seeing
> --disable-acl-support in its configure.ac; I haven't had to toy with
> rsync in rescue mode just yet, so I'm not sure how imperative it would
> be to have ACL support there…
>
> (I don't mind the acl udeb addition anyway, just putting some
> ideas/options on the table.)
I appreciate the suggestion, I assumed that it would be a simple
workaround, but tried to make use of "--disable-acl-support", "export
enable_acl_support="no"" and "--enable-acl-support="no"" (which I
assumed would work, by looking at configure.sh and configure.ac) and
rsync-udeb still ends up being linked to libacl1. Maybe support for
that flag is broken, or I missed something.
My initial assumption was that having libacl-udeb wouldn't cause a
considerable overhead, while having the benefit of shipping an
rsync-udeb which supports the same features as the regular one (total
size of rsync binary is around 500kb).
I reckon Guillem mentions acl-udeb would match the already existent
attr-udeb package, but I don't know how rsync deals with both libs and
how they cap its features exactly, since it seems that libattr1 is
only used in some archs (hppa, m68k, powerpcspe, sh4, sparc64). I can
say that having support for ACLs on rsync-udeb would help in a
scenario where the user wants to do a full copy of the files, maybe
copying the whole system's FS with its ACLs along.
Paul, what do you think about this? Could you take a brief look at
what I did[0] and confirm if there's actually an upstream issue with
regards to disabling ACL support?
Could you also share your opinion on the importance of providing
rsync-udeb with ACL support?
Guillem, please give me a heads up in case you think this is a good
argument for providing libacl1-udeb, in such case I will stop
investigating how to build rsync without having it symlinked to the
lib.
debian-boot: also ping me in case I should stop cc'ing the list.
Thanks everyone,
[0] https://salsa.debian.org/debian/rsync/-/tree/debian/udeb-729069
--
Samuel Henrique <samueloph>
Reply to: