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
sorry. 'force create mask' is really contradictory to the purpose of 'force create mode'. In fact, the 'create mode' synonym should be removed IMO.
(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
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.
(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.