Dear Jeremy Allison,
Logged it as bug #6186, I've attached the patch and described
the workaround.
Thank you very much for this fix. I confirm that it works and I hope that
it will be incorporated into a next Samba release.
You could also close this bug:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 12:23:55AM +0100, Jaroslav Fojtik wrote:
Dear Jeremy Allison,
Logged it as bug #6186, I've attached the patch and described
the workaround.
Thank you very much for this fix. I confirm that it works and I hope that
it will be incorporated into a next Samba release.
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 02:56:59AM +0100, Günter Kukkukk wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 12. März 2009 schrieb Jeremy Allison:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:56:27AM +, tom m. wrote:
I'm not against doing that, but does add some work: rebuild extended
attribute
support in kernel, change
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 02:56:59AM +0100, Günter Kukkukk wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 12. März 2009 schrieb Jeremy Allison:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:56:27AM +, tom m. wrote:
I'm not against doing that, but does add some work: rebuild extended
attribute
support in kernel, change
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:30:55AM +, tom m. wrote:
If it were a permission problem, then it wouldn't be possible to set Read-only
attribute in the first place, correct?
Here's the result of creating an empty file called 'test.txt' via notepad, as
viewed from the linux-side. The 'create
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:56:27AM +, tom m. wrote:
I'm not against doing that, but does add some work: rebuild extended attribute
support in kernel, change fstab, etc. But if I do this, what will be the
state
of all the attribute bits of existing files? That is, will files marked
Am Donnerstag, 12. März 2009 schrieb Jeremy Allison:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:56:27AM +, tom m. wrote:
I'm not against doing that, but does add some work: rebuild extended
attribute
support in kernel, change fstab, etc. But if I do this, what will be the
state
of all the
Also, what is different from my config that is causing this problem vs. other
posters who report that it works ok for them? (...)
I simply reported that it is working for me (as it is) because I assumed
that you were using store dos attributes = yes as I am. I found this
to be the
