[Top] [All Lists]

Re: setfacl fix

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: setfacl fix
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 23:19:01 -0600
Cc: Steve French <smfrench@xxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-cifs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, samba-technical <samba-technical@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131118152723.GA19649@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CAH2r5msswZg_NvY9qMNknh2FWht1jMgwW1s2umtaBj3mHreDAw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131116145507.GA22395@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAH2r5mtXjnAOpKzZzta_yWDGyEPzR7h1wb0UW2pnoicm9Qsgxg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131118152723.GA19649@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Nov 18, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 03:38:09PM -0600, Steve French wrote:
>> Makes sense to add a setfacl/getfacl test to xfstest and was trying to
>> build updated xfstests and look at what has changed but ran into a
>> strange error building xfstests and didn't see an obvious answer when
>> googling for it.  Any idea how to workaround the build failure?
>> Building src
>>    [DEP]
>>    [CC]    dirstress
>> gcc: error: /lib64/libhandle.so: Too many levels of symbolic links
>> These are the steps I went through from a fairly clean Fedora 19 64
>> system before the make failure:
> No idea.  Maybe some of the RedHat people on the xfs list have more
> experience with Fedora than I have.
Just FWIW fedora has xfsprogs-devel and xfsprogs-qa-devel rpms which should 
satisfy xfstests for that part of the deps.  I've not done a qa-install 
manually on fedora since forever...

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>