(I posted this to linux.samba earlier, but figured I might get better
response here)
Okay, MS does it again. They've got something new added, apparently
with Win2K (but possibly from Win98 or so), which is a sort of link but
not quite the same as the shortcut ".lnk" format.
Basically, a folder is created, inside which is a "target.lnk"
shortcut
file (as normal). The entire folder (from the top-level folder)
behaves as a shortcut, in the explorer, just as a straight .lnk file
would. Why this can't simply be a normal shortcut is beyond me
(unless, maybe, you couldn't shortcut-link folders before? Dunno.)
Anyway, the problem is that Windows, rather than checking for the
existence of "<folder>/target.lnk", checks to see if
"<folder>" is
marked "Read Only." If it is, THEN it checks for and processes the
target.lnk file within the folder. It's using the read-only attribute
of the folder as a flag.
All well and good. Except that Linux (and, I assume, other back-end
unix types) doesn't like this behavior. I've tried like blazes, with a
bunch of different "inherit permissions" and create/force
file/directory masks, to get it to do what I want, but can't seem to
get it functioning properly all the time. Samba only tells the Win2K
client that the folder is "Read Only" if it's missing the write
bit for
the owner. But, of course, if it's missing the write bit, then we
can't update anything in the folder.
The problem is that I'm running into this for Roaming Profiles. Every
time you log out, it copies stuff from your local profile to the samba
server, including things like folder pointers in the Start menu or in
the Network Neighborhood ("My Network Places.") If I get the server
configured to allow the write, then it ends up missing the read-only
attribute when we're done, and Windows won't recognize it as a shortcut
when I log in again. If I get it so that the bit is set properly, then
Linux won't let me actually CREATE the shortcut properly in the first
place.
Has anyone run across this yet? Is there an easy answer? Is there a
workaround?
Thanks!
david.