Samba 3.0.20 read-only behaviour

[Jeremy Allison]

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 08:55:15AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 18:17 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:50:28AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > > 
> > > Sure, I should store dos attributes on every file on my filesystem, to
> > > stop Samba over-zealously marking files as such?  I just think the logic
> > > in this is all backwards:  Now we have this EA storage you are so fond
> > > of, why do we need to force it based on permissions?
> > >
> > > DOS attributes and access control are different things, and I think this
> > > is undue mixing.
> > 
> > If you want to decouple DOS attributes from permissions, you need
> > to mark a file as such. Samba has historically used the lack of 
> > the everyone unix "w" bit to denote read-only. It's only since we have
> > EA's that we've been able to decouple the two. 
> 
> So why did you increase the coupling?  With EAs now there was no need
> for this change was there?

Because users on the lists requested it. They were puzzled why files
they could write to (via an ACL) were being shown as "read-only" and
requested the change.

Jeremy.