Re: master fails to build on FreeBSD when ACL support is on

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden,
>  address@hidden
> From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 09:02:47 -0800
> 
> You asked why the two functions are inconsistent, and my answer was that 
> the inconsistency springs from the fact that they have different APIs. 
> The two functions would continue to be inconsistent even if we were to 
> change the behavior in the way that you suggest, since set-file-acl 
> would inform callers whether ACL setting failed (by returning nil 
> instead of t), whereas copy-file would not. If consistency is the goal 
> then we need to change their APIs somehow.

Why do we need to inform the callers that ACL setting failed, when we
detect that ACLs are not supported by the underlying filesystem?  What
would be the practical usefulness of such an indication?