Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 536766
getfacl and setfacl does not accept -h -v options although they are mentioned in manpages
Last modified: 2012-10-11 04:13:01 EDT
Description of problem: Both getfacl and setfacl commands mention -h and -v options in the synopsys section of the manpage but these options does not work. I am not sure whether those options were removed on purpose or by mistake (since it seems that it worked cca 1 year ago) but anyway man pages should reflect the behaviour of the program. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): acl-2.2.39-3.el5.i386 (and also in new acl-2.2.39-6.el5.i386) How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. getfacl -h 2. getfacl --help 3. compare with man getfacl Actual results: $ getfacl -h getfacl: invalid option -- h Usage: getfacl [-dRLP] file ... Try `getfacl --help' for more information. $ getfacl --help getfacl 2.2.39 -- get file access control lists Usage: getfacl [-dRLP] file ... --access display the file access control list only -d, --default display the default access control list only --omit-header do not display the comment header --all-effective print all effective rights --no-effective print no effective rights --skip-base skip files that only have the base entries -R, --recursive recurse into subdirectories -L, --logical logical walk, follow symbolic links -P --physical physical walk, do not follow symbolic links --tabular use tabular output format --numeric print numeric user/group identifiers --absolute-names don't strip leading '/' in pathnames --version print version and exit --help this help text NAME getfacl - get file access control lists SYNOPSIS getfacl [-dRLPvh] file ... getfacl [-dRLPvh] - Expected results: getfacl and setfacl should accept -v and -h options or those options should not be mentioned in manpages Additional info: acl version acl-2.2.47-4.fc11.x86_64 from fedora 11 accepts those options but to be honest Fedora version accepts even more options. [ksrot@dhcp-lab-252 ~]$ getfacl --help getfacl 2.2.47 -- get file access control lists Usage: getfacl [-aceEsRLPtpndvh] file ... -a, --access display the file access control list only -d, --default display the default access control list only -c, --omit-header do not display the comment header -e, --all-effective print all effective rights -E, --no-effective print no effective rights -s, --skip-base skip files that only have the base entries -R, --recursive recurse into subdirectories -L, --logical logical walk, follow symbolic links -P, --physical physical walk, do not follow symbolic links -t, --tabular use tabular output format -n, --numeric print numeric user/group identifiers -p, --absolute-names don't strip leading '/' in pathnames -v, --version print version and exit -h, --help this help text
Created attachment 369002 [details] patch This is a known bug an it's already fixed in Fedora. Jirka
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in the current release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Because the affected component is not scheduled to be updated in the current release, Red Hat is unfortunately unable to address this request at this time. Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to propose this request, if appropriate and relevant, in the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Comment on attachment 369002 [details] patch The patch enables more short options than the el5 man page and --help suggest. Only options -v and -h should be added. The other options from Fedora are not supposed to be propagated into el5.
Created attachment 472557 [details] proposed fix
Comment on attachment 472557 [details] proposed fix Looks sane... additional binary chacl is just IRIX compat, so it doesn't need these options common in Linux.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-0242.html