Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from January 2009
On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:07:19PM +0100, Abigail wrote: > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:11:08PM -0500, Charles Bailey wrote: > > > > - 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 . > > . . > > I think that's indeed a useful compromise. > > > It DOESN'T do the following: > > > > - 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. > > > I fail to see why one needs chown to test setid bits. I think this > can be tested without needed extra priviledges, and I've some ideas > on how to test this. I'll come with a patch in the next few days. I've committed a patch that checks whether set[eu]id and sticky bits don't get dropped when copying files. (No tests to see whether they are dropped when copying someone elses file). Also, the test that checks whether a file belongs to a group the user belongs to failed to check whether the file belongs to the default group of the user (as returned by getpwuid). The patch fixes this. AbigailThread Previous | Thread Next