Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2009
2009/1/25 Charles Bailey <bailey.charles@gmail.com>: > Well, I finally found a couple of tuits, and spent one learning > elementary git-fu, and the other on the attached patch. It does the > following: Thanks, applied as e63b33793c3cf76a134a6446d1f83479e030a15f (but lines unwrapped by hand.) > - Moves the permission-changing code to File::Copy::cp(), making it > non-identical to File::Copy::copy(). I think this is a decent > compromise, retaining backwards compatibility in the "primary" > routine, while allowing people who chose cp() to get more POSIXy > semantics. It does break backwards compatibility of cp() wrt > permissions. I can find a handful of examples in CPAN, for which I > hope smokers will give some feedback. As for the DARKpan, who knows . > . . > > - Expands the permission changing in cp() a bit to cover the rest of > what cp(1) claims on the local POSIX box. > > - Removes Fcntl from the mix, to eliminate some build-time hoops. > > - Shifts Abigail's permission tests to cp(), and adds parallel tests for copy(). > > - Documents the permission-related behavior in more detail. > > It DOESN'T do the following: > > - Make the permission changes in cp() conditional on an import key or > somesuch. That'd retain backwards compatibility by default; do we > want to take this approach? As we can consider the current behaviour a bug, no. > - Test the handling of setid bits. Doing this properly would required > chown, and hence root, which doesn't strike me as belonging in the > regular test suite. It looks like we don't test chown itself in this > way, so I figured adding skip-unless-I'm-root tests was overkill. Right. > - Remove Scalar::Util. It looks possible to replace the blessed() and > overload() checks with something like > my $ra = ref $a; "$a" !~ /^$ra\(0x[0-9a-f]+\)$/ > but I need to think it through a bit more and test it. That wouldn't work with scalars with "" overload, I think.Thread Previous | Thread Next