* Michael Stone (mstone@debian.org) 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
Attachment:
pgpIUWNm1h93h.pgp
Description: PGP signature