> Steven N. Hirsch wrote:
> > That's the one I'm using, and it is _not_ working. Wonder what the
> > difference is between my setup and the one that works?
>
> I'm not sure, but perhaps a few tests would help show what's happening.
> If you could try out these tests on a WfW share:
>
> touch foo
> chmod -w foo
> cp -a foo bar
> chmod +w foo
> echo hi >>foo
>
> and verify whether the permissions and timestamps are behaving, and what
> if any error messages occur.
>
> Regards,
> Bill
>
root:/mnt/tmp#date
Fri Dec 5 16:32:26 GMT 1997
root:/mnt/tmp# touch foo
root:/mnt/tmp# chmod -w foo
root:/mnt/tmp# cp -a foo bar
root:/mnt/tmp# chmod +w foo
root:/mnt/tmp# echo hi >>foo
root:/mnt/tmp#ls -l
total 1
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 0 Dec 5 16:28 BAR
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3 Dec 5 16:32 FOO
root:/mnt/tmp#date
Fri Dec 5 16:32:33 GMT 1997
Dec 5 16:32:27 shawc kernel: smb_errno: class ERRDOS, code 50 from
command 9
Dec 5 16:32:27 shawc kernel: smb_errno: class ERRDOS, code 50 from
command 9
Dec 5 16:32:27 shawc kernel: smb_proc_settime: tmp/bar failed, res=-5,
rcls=1,
err=50
Dec 5 16:32:32 shawc kernel: smb_request_ok: rcls=1, err=18 mapped to 0
So touch is problematic, but the rest works ok.
-- Shaw Carruthers - shaw@shawc.demon.co.uk London SW14 7JW UK This is not a sig( with homage to Magritte).