search for: acl_get_fil

Whenever I try to read or modify ACLs from my Windows 2000 PDC, my Samba Domain Member Server (Security = ADS) does not allow setting ACLs, nor does it display the existing ACLs. - I have setup ACLs in my Kernel - I have translated and installed libacl and libattr - I can see and modify ACLs with getfacl and setfacl. - I have translated Samba 3.0.23d with --with-acl-support=yes - I have enabled

...with-utmp --with-acl-support > ~/myconfig.out 2>&1 [username@localhost source]# cat ~/myconfig.out | grep acl checking for sys/acl.h... yes checking for _acl... no checking for __acl... no checking for _facl... no checking for __facl... no checking whether to support ACLs... checking for acl_get_file in -lacl... no The log shows that acl_get_file is not found because: configure:13177: gcc -o conftest -O -O2 -march=i386 -mcpu=i686 -D_LARGEFILE64_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_GNU_SOURCE -Wl,-rpath,/usr/lib conftest.c -lacl -lcups -lssl -lcrypto -lnsl -lcrypt -lpam 1>&5 /lib/libacl...

...e found in /usr/include/sys/. But all my efforts trying to implement xfs are honored by samba with the well known configure messages: checking for _acl... no checking for __acl... no checking for _facl... no checking for __facl... no [..] checking whether to support ACLs... checking for acl_get_file in -lacl... no checking for ACL support... no I did ldconfig after installing attr-dev and removed config.cache, nothing helped! so, what is wrong here? what am I missing? thx in advance, tony.n ______________________________________________________________________________ Die clevere Geldr...

I have compiled both my kernel (2.4.17) and samba (2.2.3a) to support ACL/EAs. It looks like it has gone well, but I get one message that worries me, but I don't know if it should or not. checking whether to support ACLs... checking for acl_get_file in -lacl... yes checking for ACL support... yes Using posix ACLs checking for acl_get_perm_np... no As you can see, the last line is where my concern lies. Can anyone shed some light on what is being done here? Thanks alot, Al Moote

Hello ! I am using samba 3 with acl support and when I use the "hide unreadable" option, it only take the unix right. Even if they have read or write access given by acls, people have to be the owner of a directory to see it. I don't know if it's realy a bug or if i'm not using it the right way, i simply add it to a share definition. Thanks in advance ! Eric Guimont

...ReportedBy: vapier@gentoo.org QAContact: rsync-qa@samba.org the current output from running `./configure --enable-acl-support` after applying the acl patch looks like: <snip> checking for __facl... no checking whether to support ACLs... ACLs requested -- running tests checking for acl_get_file in -lacl... yes checking for ACL support... yes Using posix ACLs checking for acl_get_perm_np... no checking attr/xattr.h usability... yes </snip> trivial patch attached against the patch/acls.diff in CVS to make it read: <snip> checking for __facl... no checking whether to support AC...

...Change the dependancy requirements in the source rpm spec file from requiring acl-devel to libacl-devl and libattr-devel. Enable ACL support for MDK-8.1 (this was being built on mandrake 8.1) edit configure.in in the samba source, and add 'LIBS="$LIBS -lattr" before the check for acl_get_file (at around line 2596, so it looks like: LIBS="$LIBS -lattr" AC_CHECK_LIB(acl,acl_get_file) AC_CACHE_CHECK([for ACL support],samba_cv_HAVE_POSIX_ACL S,[ AC_TRY_LINK([#include <sys/types.h> ran...

...ba (2.2.5) and acltools from bestbits. i would use an fileserver with acl support, but i have some problems. after uncompress the tar-archiv i type in the sourcedirectory: ./configure --with-quotas --with-acl-support and i get the following: "checking whether to support ACLs... checking for acl_get_file in -lacl... (cached) no checking for ACL support... (cached) no" is this normal? well, i've done make and make install. the option <nt acl support> is availible, but it does not work. local acl works! please help! regards... -- STEPHAN PFEIFFER ICQ: 39844459 (Home) 39064...

...mba 2.2.5. I'm using redhat 7.3, with ACL support from http://acl.bestbits.at/. I've tested that the ACL is working on the filesystem, and samba can find it too. Here's the error: checking if large file support can be enabled... yes checking whether to support ACLs... checking for acl_get_file in -lacl... yes checking for ACL support... yes Using posix ACLs checking for acl_get_perm_np... no checking whether to build winbind... yes checking whether to enable winbind auth challenge/response code... checking whether or not getgroups returns EGID too many times... yes checking whether str...

Hiya. I've got an XFS partition, have compiled and installed all the XFS stuff, then compiled (with --with-acl-support) samba, which then returns: checking whether to support ACLs... checking for acl_get_file in -lacl... yes checking for ACL support... yes Using posix ACLs So it would seem to me that ACLs would be supported. So then I install and run it, add the box to the (Samba 2.2.2) domain, surf via Windows (W2K) to a share point, modify the ACLs on a file or directory, and save them. Everythin...

Thanks for the help on the missing '-p1' for the acl and xattr patches. Things are configuring and making properly now. However, I couldn't help noticing this during the configure: checking whether to support ACLs... ACLs requested -- running tests checking for acl_get_file in -lacl... no checking for ACL support... yes checking ACL test results... Using posix ACLs checking for acl_get_perm_np... yes checking attr/xattr.h usability... no checking attr/xattr.h presence... no checking for attr/xattr.h... no checking whether to support extended attributes... Xattrs requ...

...if they were on a windows server, but the permissions that show up are unix_group 109 (server\unix_group 109) I may not have configured samba with acl support ./configure --with-acl-support So I went back and tried running that line. It reported: checking whether to support ACLs... checking for acl_get_file in -lacl... (cached) no checking for ACL support... (cached) no Now I'm not sure where to go from here. Any ideas? Thanks, Brett -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba

...SIX ACLs are improved file permissions. ACLs can grant access to users and groups other than the owners of a file, and they can specify default permissions for new files in a folder that take the place of the `umask'. This option should be a matter of getting the ACL on one system using "acl_get_file" and "acl_copy_ext", sending it to the other system, and applying it using "acl_copy_int" and "acl_set_file". It would take a little more work to preserve IDs by name and make this play nicely with "--numeric-ids". The "-a" option should pro...

...s: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org ReportedBy: trasz at FreeBSD.org QAContact: rsync-qa at samba.org When running on ZFS or UFS with NFSv4 ACL support enabled, "rsync -A" fails due to acl_get_file(3) returning EINVAL. EINVAL is caused by improper use of this routine - rsync doesn't bother to check if POSIX.1e ACLs are supported, and blindly requests ACL_TYPE_ACCESS, which is invalid for files with NFSv4 ACLs. Patch below makes rsync properly recognize EINVAL as lack of support for the...

I've upgraded to Samba 3.0 (samba-3.0.0.tar.bz2) from 2.2.7a and I am having troubles with the acl-support. I am running xfs with ACLs enabled and ACLs did work on Samba 2.2.7 I've compiled samba 3 --with-acl-support --with-winbind --with-quotas But I still can't get the ACLs to work. Am I missing something?

Hello samba guys and XFS guys, I am now using Linux-2.4.5-1.0.1_XFS and Samba 2.2.2. Try to create a samba share on a XFS volume, for example, we create a directory named 'public', and set its default acl on 'public' as 'u::rwx,g::rw-,o::r--,m::rwx', . Under Linux box, try to create a file named 'file_linux' under directory 'public', On Samba client (Win2K)

...ibutes = yes writable = yes map archive = no map read only = no map hidden = no map system = no create mode = 777 directory mode = 777 Samba configure params: --prefix=/usr/local/samba ... checking whether to support ACLs... auto configure: checking whether ACL support is available: checking for acl_get_file in -lacl... yes checking for getxattr in -lattr... yes checking for POSIX ACL support... yes configure: Using posix ACLs checking for acl_get_perm_np... no ...

...tarting with "with-acl-support"). When I run the next command in the HowTo: cd /usr/src/redhat/SPECS/ && rpm -ba samba.spec I get a lot of activity on screen, ending with this: checking if large file support can be enabled... yes checking whether to support ACLs... checking for acl_get_file in -lacl... no checking for ACL support... no checking whether to build winbind... yes checking whether or not getgroups returns EGID too many times... yes checking for poptGetContext in -lpopt... no checking whether to use included popt... ./popt checking configure summary... configure: error: su...

...mountpoint> type ext3 (rw,acl) # uname -a Linux <hostname> 2.4.22-acl #2 Mon Nov 24 14:30:54 GMT 2003 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux # ./configure --with-quotas --with-acl-support --enable-cups <snip> checking whether to support ACLs... checking for getxattr in -lattr... no checking for acl_get_file in -lacl... no checking for ACL support... no </snip> Red Hat 9.0 (custom kernel), Samba 3.0.0 (release) Am I missing some (kernel) headers or is something else going on here? I'd prefer to stick with ext3 if at all possible (part of disaster recovery plan)... Incidentally I can use...

...ndows machines to a Linux server. I never saw anyone post anything about how to make it work. I tried, but I was never able to compile on Cygwin when I patched the source with the acls.diff patch. ./configure would error out after displaying: Checking whether to support ACLS... checking for acl_get_file in -lacl... no checking for ACL support... no This issue was referenced in this post, but I never saw a follow up or resolution: http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-01/msg01329.html Solution: ----------- Well I did some poking around the acls.diff patch and started examining the way...