I've tried to determine this empirically, but have run foul of config
issues that won't be resolved in the immediate future. Basically, I
know that Samba + ACL + an acl-aware filesystem will allow me to
assign unix-style permissions to arbitrary groups of people for a
given file. However, Windows
On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 05:08, Ronan Waide wrote:
I've tried to determine this empirically, but have run foul of config
issues that won't be resolved in the immediate future. Basically, I
know that Samba + ACL + an acl-aware filesystem will allow me to
assign unix-style permissions to arbitrary
On February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
you don't need ACL support for unix style permissions
(user, group, world)
ACLs are lists of arbitrary users that have the specified permissions on
the files you choose.
You do if you want more than one set of user/group acls per file.
Waider.
--
On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 08:58, Ronan Waide wrote:
On February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
you don't need ACL support for unix style permissions
(user, group, world)
ACLs are lists of arbitrary users that have the specified permissions on
the files you choose.
You do if you want more than
On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 09:21, Ronan Waide wrote:
The whole point of my question was NOT these ACLs, but whether the
extended ACLs provided by Windows were supported. Your response to
this was that you didn't know.
So essentially, you told me something I already knew, and said I
don't know
On February 6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I just tried to set an acl on take ownership it doesn't stick - it
should.
Read and write attributes does stick.
Thanks, that's what I'd seen myself. I guess it's not supported at
present.
Cheers,
Waider.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / Yes, it /is/ very
