Gerald (Jerry) Carter schrieb:
2) 'map read only = yes' should give you 3.0.14a behavior.
- according to the docs wouldn't map read only = Permissions
or No give the 3.0.20 behaviour?
oh yeah. I forgot that jeremy decided to make it an enumerated
type rather than a boolean.
Documentation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Bork wrote:
| Gerald (Jerry) Carter schrieb:
|
| 2) 'map read only = yes' should give you 3.0.14a behavior.
| - according to the docs wouldn't map read only = Permissions or No
| give the 3.0.20 behaviour?
| oh yeah. I forgot that jeremy
well, map read only = no did the trick in 3.0.21pre1
that's good to know :)
thx
Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Gasch wrote:
hibig thx jerry,
two questions remain:
1) i'm using store dos attributes so (a)/(b) do not apply for me?
If
On 10/20/05, Gerald (Jerry) Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are using 'store dos attributes = yes' but have not specifically
set any attributes on that file, then the alternatives I mentioned
still apply.
What do you have to do to specifically set attributes on the file? Do
you have to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Gasch wrote:
hi list,
i experienced a weird behaviour of samba in the latest versions
(3.0.20[a,b]) on XFS:
directory:
/data (owner=iso,group=edv)
permissions: 2770
if i put a file in there with permissions 644
hibig thx jerry,
two questions remain:
1) i'm using store dos attributes so (a)/(b) do not apply for me?
2) 'map read only = yes' should give you 3.0.14a behavior.
- according to the docs wouldn't map read only = Permissions or No
give the 3.0.20 behaviour?
i'll play around with 3.0.21pre
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Gasch wrote:
hibig thx jerry,
two questions remain:
1) i'm using store dos attributes so (a)/(b) do not apply for me?
If you are using 'store dos attributes = yes' but have not specifically
set any attributes on that file, then the
