Bug 1945 - force create mask does not exist
force create mask does not exist
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: Samba 3.0
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Config Files
3.0.7
All Linux
: P3 normal
: none
Assigned To: Samba Bugzilla Account
Samba QA Contact
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2004-10-17 13:24 UTC by Arjan van der Veen
Modified: 2004-10-18 00:18 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Arjan van der Veen 2004-10-17 13:24:57 UTC
The man page and samba documentation describe that the "create mode" option is
an alias for the "create mask" option in the smb.conf file.
But there only exists "force create mode" and not a "force create mask" option.
Anyway, it does not do anything.

Today I spent a couple of hours finding out what was wrong with my smb.conf. I
think it is wise to create an alias "force create mask" to the "force create
mode" option. It also is not mentioned in the documentation.

In my opinion it is a very little code- and documentation enhancements that can
avoid a lot of problems.

With regards,


Arjan van der Veen
Comment 1 Gerald (Jerry) Carter 2004-10-17 14:12:11 UTC
sorry.  'force create mask' is really contradictory to the 
purpose of 'force create mode'.  In fact, the 'create mode' 
synonym should be removed IMO.
Comment 2 Arjan van der Veen 2004-10-17 14:39:18 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> sorry.  'force create mask' is really contradictory to the 
> purpose of 'force create mode'.  In fact, the 'create mode' 
> synonym should be removed IMO.

I think you did not understand me. It is confusing using both the terms 'create
mode' and 'create mask' in whatever form. If you mention in the documentation
that 'create mode' is an alias for 'create mask', then 'force create mode'
should be an alias for 'force create mask'. IMO that is consistency.
If you decide to remove one or the other it is fine with me, but this is an
inconsistency in the working of samba.

I do not understand why 'force create mode' and 'force create mask' are
contradictory to each other if 'force create mask' doesnt work and 'force create
mode' does. Can you explain this?

Arjan
Comment 3 Gerald (Jerry) Carter 2004-10-17 15:42:14 UTC
i understand perfectly what you are asking for and I'm saying 
that i will not add 'force create mask'.  A "mask" is a bitwise 
AND and the "mode" is a bitwise OR of the permissions.  That is 
why I say that 'create mode' is a bad name and should have never 
have been added.  

I will however mark 'create mode' as "to be removed" in a 
future release so we can avoid the confusion over the
parameter names and function.

Comment 4 Arjan van der Veen 2004-10-18 00:18:33 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> i understand perfectly what you are asking for and I'm saying 
> that i will not add 'force create mask'.  A "mask" is a bitwise 
> AND and the "mode" is a bitwise OR of the permissions.  That is 
> why I say that 'create mode' is a bad name and should have never 
> have been added.  
> I will however mark 'create mode' as "to be removed" in a 
> future release so we can avoid the confusion over the
> parameter names and function.

Then please 'rename' force create mode' to 'force create mask' and you have 
your clearness and consistency. Again, 'force create mode' does work, 'force 
create mask' (which should work based on what you say above here) not.