BUG with g+s: Re: "Inherit Permissions" request for comments
mjt at tls.msk.ru
Mon Jun 5 14:18:37 GMT 2000
[posting to list only]
David Collier-Brown wrote:
> Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > In the other words,
> > inherit permissions parameter changed semantics of g+s when unset.
> > If this is considered normal, than it should be documented as
> > compatibility change (that is, 2.0.7 is incompatible with all previous
> > versions on this respect).
> "Erk", saith the tech writer! (;-))
> Seriously, though, once we decide upon a resolution,
> I'll propose a migration strategy to this list and a
> documentation change to the docs list.
For a resolution. I don't know the resolution on the "inherit permissions"
parameter, but I think that if it is _not_ set/used, "normal" unix behavour
should take it's place. We can adapt NT's behavour, make our own, but
on most places, this is unix at the end! -- and unix's rules appy.
Remember -- modern unices have acls (as already mentioned), and this will
be strange for example that samba will change inherited acls set by admin for
dir then creating files/dirs inside -- this is exactly what's happened
now but with unix's rwx'es. One _should_ have ability to use native unix
permissions when he wants to (and at least there where is no reason to _not_
to allow him to do so, as in this simple case).
Just my opinion.
(I already posted a bug report (with patch that restores 2.0.6's behavor)
to RedHats' bugzilla about this :).
More information about the samba-technical