Bug 1610 - read only attribute bit not settable when using Resier file system
read only attribute bit not settable when using Resier file system
Product: Samba 3.0
Classification: Unclassified
Component: File Services
x86 Windows 2000
: P3 normal
: none
Assigned To: Samba Bugzilla Account
Samba QA Contact
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2004-08-13 05:22 UTC by Arne R. van der Heyde
Modified: 2005-02-07 08:29 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Arne R. van der Heyde 2004-08-13 05:22:46 UTC
We are running Samba as a file server for a Windows 98/NT/2K and OS/2 network.
Everything works except we are not able to change file attributes, such as
read-only, on Samba managed files. We are running Samba 2.2.10 on SuSE 8.2 with
all patches applied. We have one large partition using the Resier File System.
Reecently I have corresponded with another system manage who ran into the same
problem with Samba 3.0 running on Resier. Here is our current Samba configuration:

./configure \
  --prefix=/usr/lib/samba/classic \
  --bindir=/usr/lib/samba/classic \
  --sbindir=/usr/lib/samba/classic \
  --datadir=/usr/share \
  --sysconfdir=/etc \
  --localstatedir=/var \
  --libdir=/usr/lib/samba \
  --mandir=/usr/share/man \
  --with-fhs \
  --with-privatedir=/etc/samba \
  --with-lockdir=/var/lock/samba \
  --with-configdir=/etc/samba \
  --with-codepagedir=/usr/share/samba \
  --with-logfilebase=/var/log/samba \
  --enable-cups \
  --with-ssl \
  --with-automount \
  --with-smbmount \

Although this appears to be a bug, it is possible that I have missed something.
Comment 1 Björn Jacke 2004-08-18 05:53:12 UTC
can you please check that against the most recent samba3 version? I see no
problem there. samba2 is not being actively worked on any more and just security
bugs or other very urgent bugs are being fixed in samba2. If you do so, please
write more details about your setup like smb.conf etc.
Comment 2 Gerald (Jerry) Carter 2005-02-07 08:29:08 UTC
no response from reporter.  Was a 2.2.x bug report anyways.