search for: own

Linux.file_owner is not used by any other function, so remove it. Linux.is_file_owned is only used when removing kmod-xenpv on old RHEL releases, and so is only required to work for RPM. The old file_owner/is_file_owned functions were completely broken. This replaces them with a simpler, working implementation...

...ing wrong. This is part of my model: > resultt1 Logistic Regression Model lrm(formula = typemort ~ adv_binc_ratio + agem1 + regEA + regEM + regGL + regN + regNI + regNW + regS + regSW + regW + regWM + regY + repmethIO + repmethSR + no_dis_no_def + prevLO + prevOO + prevRP + owning + adv_binc_ratio * (repmethIO + repmethSR + no_dis_no_def + prevLO + prevOO + prevRP + owning) + agem1 * (repmethIO + repmethSR + no_dis_no_def + prevLO + prevOO + prevRP + owning), data = a) This is part of my result: > summary(resultt1,adv_binc_ratio=mean(a$adv_binc_r...

...I have a customer who is looking for a particular DID. (I dialed it and it is not in service). I searched through my preferred upstream provider's list but I came up empty. I wrote them, and this is their reply. "We currently do not have that specific number in stock as this number is owned by another carrier that we do not have a business relationship with." So my question is this. How do I find out which carrier owns the DID in question? Thanks; John V. Tech Support Tech Support VoIP Business Solutions 240-215-3479 x325 <mailto:fsd at voipbusiness.us> su...

Guys recently I had this question asked in a technical interview. How do I find out the package owning a particular file, when no package managers are installed? I am assuimg SRPMs are used to install the software? Is this actually possible? Install the Linux OS without a package manager? I know "rpm -qf filename" gives the package owning the file. But how to get the package name wh...

Hi there, I just found that if an user is assigned in the "admin users", and if the user grab a file from window to samba share, the file will be owned by root from unix view. I am believing this is a bug. The samba version I am using is 2.2.4. Weixing Hao (631) 858-6341 Forest Labs -------------- next part -------------- HTML attachment scrubbed and removed

...information. [2005-02-14 03:03:57] The file permissions are drwx------ 2 dovecot dovecot 4096 Feb 13 23:24 cur drwx------ 2 dovecot dovecot 4096 Feb 14 02:53 new drwx------ 2 dovecot dovecot 4096 Feb 14 02:53 tmp The UID/GID I am using is 1001, and the orion-w-t.co.uk/simonw directories are owned by that uid/gid. Can anyone provide advice on what I have to do to get POP, and eventually IMAP working? Many thanks Simon -- Simon Windsor Eml: simon.windsor at cornfield.org.uk Tel: 01454 617689 Mob: 07960 321599

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com> wrote: > > On 18/07/2014 02:21, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> Are people OK with/prefer the use of owning smart pointers in APIs? > > > I think smart pointers are great to use for storage, or as struct members > where there's actually a clear need for ownership. Just by virtue of getting > rid of destructors containing single delete expressions this is already a > win. Great!...

...PM, Anton Yartsev > <anton.yartsev at gmail.com <mailto:anton.yartsev at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Ping! > > Suggested is a wrapper over a raw pointer that is intended for > freeing wrapped memory at the end of wrappers lifetime if > ownership of a raw pointer was not taken away during the > lifetime of the wrapper. > The main difference from unique_ptr is an ability to access > the wrapped pointer after the ownership is transferred. > To make the ownership clearer the wrapper is designed...

Hi, We are running a cluster under CentOS 6.6. We recently attached a new NAS device, running CentOS 6.8 and rsync'd our user file system to it. We noticed that all the files were owned by nobody (with nobody as the group). We copied over the /etc/passwd and /etc/group files from our front-end server to our NAS server. If we log in to the NAS server we see the files owned by their correct owners. However, doing an ls from the front-end server or any of the compute nodes st...

Hello, It seems that a non-root user is able to copy root owned files. By that I mean a file that has "400" permission, for example. rsync <server_host_name>::base_image/etc/<root_owned_file> . The "rsyncd.conf" file has "uid=root" and "gid=root". What options do I need to use so that root can copy root...

...aged to set up a 'maildir' based mail system using fetchmail and procmail that delivers sorted mail to folders /var/spool/mail/user1, ../user2 etc. 'user1', 'user2' etc. are real users but the mail system is run under logged in user 'mailserver'. The mail folders are owned by 'user1', 'user2' etc. but mail files, when delivered, are owned by 'mailserver'. I've been unable to find a way to change this behaviour :-( Dovecot is configured by adding the single line 'mail_location = maildir:/var/spool/mail/%u' to 'dovecot.conf...

...ed in the /var/lib/samba directory. The directories permissions look like this: drwxrwx--- 2 root Domain Users 4096 25 jul 15.11 Common drwxrwx--- 2 root Domain Users 4096 13 jun 16.59 Customers drwxrwx--- 2 root Domain Users 4096 13 jun 16.32 Sales ... and so on. Each share is owned by root in the "Domain Users" group. In the Unix world, each directory can only be owned by one user in one group. But in the Samba world, directories and shares aren't owned by any single group, instead a number of groups have access to the directory or share. That is why the share...

...e first time today. Most things are running except I cannot send or receive mail. I get MTA errors. I assume that it is not running. When I send I get unable to connect to MTA. How do I diagnose the issue? in /var/log/zimbra.log: Nov 2 17:57:28 indie postfix/postfix-script[9282]: warning: not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/data/postfix/spool Nov 2 17:57:28 indie postfix/postfix-script[9289]: warning: not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/postfix-2.6.5.2z/conf/main.cf Nov 2 17:57:28 indie postfix/postfix-script[9290]: warning: not owned by root: /opt/zimbra/postfix-2.6.5.2z/conf/master.cf Nov 2 17:5...

Under "ChrootDirectory" there is a line that says, "This path, and all its components, must be root-owned directories that are not writable by any other user or group." When I first read this "all its components" seemed to mean that all directories and files within this directory must be root owned and root only writable. This seemed odd as I would not be able to allow uploads if this...

...and what permissions should they have. I am thinking of /var/run/dovecot and the index directory. What ownership, group and permissions should they be? Are there any other files/dirs created for dovecot alone (not the mail folders and INBOXes); if so, how should they be owned and permed? I had thought they were to be owned by dovecot, but it turns out that they should not -- ==== Stewart Dean, Uni...

...ar/wine for all users, and changed the permissions for /var/wine and it's contents to root:wine rwxr-xr-x. The wine registry and the savegame directories for my games have g+w as well. I am a member of the wine group. When I attempt to run wine, I get the error message "wine: /var/wine not owned by you". Since I have group permissions, why is it a problem that the directory is not owned by me, and what can I do about it given I need a system-wide wine folder?

On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 18:56 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > Other IR objects (like instructions) have very simple ownership. An > instruction is owned by its basic block, a bb is owned by the function, a > function is owned by thet module. If an instruction is initially allocated with its Instruction *insertAtEnd parameter defaulted to null, and then later appended to a BasicBlock, will the BasicBlock ta...

...versation has already been happening on llvm-dev so there's no good way for me to capture the entire existing discussion (so I'm jumping you in part-way) & the subject line could be more descriptive, but I wanted to add Clang developers since many of the interesting cases of conditional ownership I've seen were in Clang. I know some of you are also on llvm-dev but not active readers, so it might be worth using this as a jumping off point to go & find the full llvm-dev thread, read that and, when replying, add cfe-dev. If anyone not on llvm-dev wants some more context there...

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Anton Yartsev <anton.yartsev at gmail.com> wrote: > Ping! > > Suggested is a wrapper over a raw pointer that is intended for freeing > wrapped memory at the end of wrappers lifetime if ownership of a raw > pointer was not taken away during the lifetime of the wrapper. > The main difference from unique_ptr is an ability to access the wrapped > pointer after the ownership is transferred. > To make the ownership clearer the wrapper is designed for local-scope > usage only...

Hi, I would like to make it impossible for users to change the contents of the authorized_keys-file. I just found out about the sshd_config setting: AuthorizedKeysFile /etc/ssh/authorized_keys/%u But even in that case that file has to be owned by the user, unless I set ``StrictModes no'' which would allow other nastyness. I would like to request that that file could also be owned by root, so I can make that file immutable for the user, even on filesystems which don't support the immutable flag, for example jfs on GNU/Linux....