[Samba] Symbolic links not visible on osx 10.10

[Lorenzo Perone]

Hi,

I'm replying to this post (as I wasn't subscribed to the list until
now). Is there any progress on this issue (not being able to see
symbolic links as such on a SMB3_02 share mounted with macOS)?

It looks to me like this is one of the last showstoppers left for samba
being able to be a full replacement for netatalk, since vfs_fruit is
otherwise doing a good job.

Best Wishes,

Lorenzo


> Jan 07, 2015; 9:20am
> Re: Symbolic links not visible on osx 10.10
> Ralph Böhme-3
> 578 posts
> 	
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 03:17:08AM +0100, Markus Doits wrote:
>> Since I do not see my last messages in the samba mail archive (I replied
>> myself), ...
> 
> <https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2015-January/188112.html>
> 
>> ... here's the last one I sent with some more information (so
>> hopefully they arrive now for everybody?):
>>
>> I just found out this is not only happening on the osx clients by
>> mounting the share on the server:
>>
>> All this below happens on an linux arch server mounting the own share:
>>
>> mount //ip.addr/Programs ./tmp -o vers=3.0
>> --> non existent symlinks do not show up
>> --> cannot create symbolic links ("operation not supported")
>>
>> mount //ip.addr/Programs ./tmp -o vers=2.1
>> --> non existent symlinks do not show up
>> --> cannot create symbolic links ("operation not supported")
>>
>> mount //ip.addr/Programs ./tmp -o vers=1.0
>> --> non existent symlinks show up
>> ---> links are created as real links
>>
>> I noticed the mount output shows `nounix` when connecting with 2.1 and 3.0:
>>
>> //ip.addr/Programs on /mnt/tmp type cifs
>> (rw,relatime,vers=3.0,sec=ntlmssp,cache=strict,username=markus,domain=OFFICE,uid=0,noforceuid,gid=0,noforcegid,addr=ip.addr,file_mode=0755,dir_mode=0755,nounix,serverino,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,actimeo=1,user=markus)
>>
>> This is done automatically, I have no idea how to remove it. (-o unix,
>> -o nounix=0 give an error)
>>
>> So not only happening on osx client ... :-(
>>
>> Is this maybe per protocol? Samba protocol 2.1 and 3.0 not being able to
>> use *real*  symbolic links?
> ... [show rest of quote]
> 
> I'm busy atm, but I'll revisit as time permits.
> 
> -Ralph