more thoughts on Samba permissions manipulation

[David Collier-Brown]

Cole, Timothy D. wrote:
> Only thing is, now I'm having a hard time coming up with a rationale for
> even having a 'security mask'-like parameter.  It's probably related to the
> rationale behind the 'force mode' parameter, which I can't justify to myself
> right now either.  Obviously someone wanted or needed it, though; I'm kind
> of curious who uses 'force mode', and for what...

	We use it to force group write on files which are maniplated
	by a PC program:  they're initially group-writable, until
	someone edits them with the PC program, which renames them
	to <name>.BAK, and creates a new file <name>.<ext> with the
	default permissions and ownerships and the changed data.

	This destroys the previous ownership and permissions, so
	no-one else can edit the files! Therefor we force group write 
	on all files created in that share.


	By the way, the Eunuch programs which manipulate the files
	make a copy named <file>.BAK, and then read from it and
	write to <file>.<ext> when changing their contents. This
	doesn't blow the ownerships and permissions away.

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | Always do right. This will gratify some people
185 Ellerslie Ave.,   | and astonish the rest.        -- Mark Twain
Willowdale, Ontario   | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb
Work: (905) 477-0437 Home: (416) 223-8968 Email: davecb at canada.sun.com