search for: ownership

...mkdir: cannot create directory `/var/lib/asterisk' than after reading the archives: I did: ./configure --enable-dev-mode --prefix=/tmp/asterisk --sysconfdir=/tmp/astconf --localstatedir=/tmp/aststate and than make install.: This is the error I am getting: tar: vm-tocallnum.gsm: Cannot change ownership to uid 1000, gid 1000: Operation not permitted tar: vm-tocancel.gsm: Cannot change ownership to uid 1000, gid 1000: Operation not permitted tar: vm-tocancelmsg.gsm: Cannot change ownership to uid 1000, gid 1000: Operation not permitted tar: vm-toenternumber.gsm: Cannot change ownership to uid 1000,...

Case point: 2 Servers (both with Windows Server 2k3 & cygwin). Running ssh on the destination server. Problem: The rsync user will take ownership over any files copied over from the source server. This takes ownership away from the administrators group, thus disallowing inherited permissions. Is there any way around not taking ownership away from the administrators group and giving it to the rsync user? I've seen this done with the cwR...

I just download R-1.6.2 source code for unix to install. I am intalling it under redhat linux. But after ./configure, when I try to make, there always error showed: /usr/bin/install: cannot change ownership of `../../bin/BATCH': Operation not permitted /usr/bin/install: cannot change ownership of `../../bin/LINK': Operation not permitted /usr/bin/install: cannot change ownership of `../../bin/Rcmd': Operation not permitted /usr/bin/install: cannot change ownership of `../../bin/Rdiff...

...explicit I suspect). > and we've seen around 20% performance > improvement over shared_ptr due to savings on acquire/release > semantics. The existing use cases I'm interested in aren't using shared_ptr and wouldn't be ideally migrated to it (in some cases the existing ownership might be on the stack (so it can't be shared) or several layers up the call stack through which raw pointers have been passed (eg: build something, pass it through a few APIs, underlying thing 'wants' to take ownership, but it will be constructed/destroyed before this API returns - so w...

...ttempt to write: 21172 ? D 0:00 touch /pfs1/test/junk1 Anybody else run into this situation? Client mount log (/var/log/glusterfs/pfs2.log) below: [2011-06-29 10:28:07.860519] E [afr-self-heal-metadata.c:522:afr_sh_metadata_fix] 0-pfs-ro1-replicate-6: Unable to self-heal permissions/ownership of '/' (possible split-brain). Please fix the file on all backend volumes [2011-06-29 10:28:07.860668] E [afr-self-heal-metadata.c:522:afr_sh_metadata_fix] 0-pfs-ro1-replicate-1: Unable to self-heal permissions/ownership of '/' (possible split-brain). Please fix the file on all back...

...re if it''s possible, Josh Susser''s blog suggests it is, but damned if I can work it out... I have: Container which can contain one or more Element. An Element is a polymorph of either a Container or a Chunk. An Element can exist in one or more Containers. I use a table called ownerships as the join between Containers and Element. Here''s some code: create_table :containers do |t| t.column :name, :string end create_table :chunks do |t| t.column :name, :string end create_table :ownerships do |t| t.column :name, :string t.column :container_id, :...

G'day, I'm in the process of fixing a long broken rsync backup on a couple of servers. The old system rsync'd a Linux (CentOS 5) server onto a Opensolaris/OpenIndiana server but didn't worry about ownership or permissions, across an expensive WAN link. All the ownerships and permissions are different to the original box on the OI box. I now have a virtual CentOS 5 box that I want to mostly mirror the master server onto to have as a warm backup. I have all the files on the OpenIndiana box but wi...

Agreed, the existing ownership seems sub-optimal. I wouldn't say broken, but subtle at least - looks like you get the choice to either manage the ownership of the Module object yourself, or let the context handle it (eg: currently it'd be valid to just do "{ LLVMContext C; new Module(C); new Module(C); }" - Mod...

...aredDeleter> M(new Module(C.get()), ModuleAndSharedContextDeleter(C)); (or invert this and traffic in structs that have a unique_ptr<Module> and a shared_ptr<LLVMContext> as members - though the above example has the advantage that it mostly looks like unique_ptr, and you can change ownership (pass the unique_ptr<Module, CustomDeleter> to a shared_ptr and it'll correctly propagate the deleter, etc)) ... But it sounds like you're concerned with a situation in which there are a wide variety of things making Modules that are maybe outside the purview of Orc but need this own...

As I’m sure many of you have noticed, I no longer have the time to be a proper code owner for SelectionDAG. In the interest of the project and to keep development running smoothly, I am resigning my code ownership. Justin Bogner has graciously volunteered to take it up. He has a strong history of LLVM contributions, a demonstrated commitment to good community development practices, and has experience shaving the infinite herd of SelectionDAG yaks. I am happy to recommend Justin take over the SelectionDAG...

...t;Puppet::Rails::Host:0xb72c0c38> I do not use environment''s and they are not defined anywhere in the puppet.conf (below). Also seeing; Thu Dec 18 15:55:58 +1100 2008 /Settings[/etc/puppet/puppet.conf]/Settings[puppetmasterd]/File[/opt/puppet/bucket]/owner (warning): Cannot manage ownership unless running as root Thu Dec 18 15:55:58 +1100 2008 /Settings[/etc/puppet/puppet.conf]/Settings[rails]/File[/var/lib/puppet/state/clientconfigs.sqlite3]/owner (warning): Cannot manage ownership unless running as root Thu Dec 18 15:55:58 +1100 2008 /Settings[/etc/puppet/puppet.conf]/Settings[pu...

We have a Red Hat 7.3 file server that serves about 30 Windows PCs via Samba 2.2.3a. I have one group called "users" that everyone is in but when a file is created by a PC, the group ownership on the created file is not "users", but the same as the file owner name. Is there any way to force the group ownership of created files? Also, is there any way to force file ownersip to a given user on newly created files? Regards, Brad

Hi all, I am hereby resigning my code ownership of libclc. I would like to nominate Tom Stellard as the new code owner. Thanks, -- Peter

Are there plans to support logon time restrictions in Samba, or is it somehow supported already? We are using an NT4 PDC, and would like the samba servers to disconnect users outside of their logon times. Also, is there any way to allow one to change file ownership via samba? I have not found any way to do this. We would like domain admins to have this ability so that we can maintain file ownership & permissions from NT boxes to allow quotas to be correctly managed on the samba boxes. Currently files copied/moved to a user share on the samba box keep...

...hed, time to deallocate the module. // Explicit deletes used for clarity, we would use unique_ptrs in practice. auto &Ctx = Mod->getContext(); delete Mod; std::lock_guard<std::mutex> Lock(Ctx->getMutex()); if (Ctx.getNumModules()) delete Ctx; Another option would be to invert the ownership model and say that each Module shares ownership of its LLVMContext. That way LLVMContexts would be automatically deallocated when the last module using them is destructed (providing no other shared_ptrs to the context are held elsewhere). There are other possible approaches (e.g. side tables for t...

Hi I am about to migrate our corporate network from NT to Samba and Linux. But I have stumbled upon a problem : How do I transfer the files from NT to Samba and preserve the ownership? The users will be using the same usernames as before. Are there a script or program, that can transfer these rights? Or is it the hard way? 20Gb of data, nearly 100000 files. Regards Jacob

...listed to shared pointer semantics > ? It will be a simple and clear model; unless someone justifies that it > will be a performance concern to use shared pointers there I don’t think we > need a new and more complex to reason about smart pointer. > I'd generally prefer conditional ownership over shared ownership if possible - it's a narrower contract & I can still think about where the single owner is. I know in at least some of these uses, shared pointer semantics would not be applicable - TextDiagnosticPrinter::OwnsOutputStream, for example either owns its own newly allocat...

...443> demonstrates how the solution with a certain type of smart pointer would look like (see changes in TGParser::ParseDef(), TGParser::InstantiateMulticlassDef() and TGParser::ParseSimpleValue()). Briefly: consider a leaky example: { T* p = new T; if (condition1) { f(p); // takes ownership of p } p->SomeMethod(); if (condition2) { return nullptr; // Leak! } g(p); // don't take ownership of p return p; } The preferred solution would look like: { smart_ptr<T> p(new T); if (condition1) { f(p.StopOwn()); // takes ownership of p } p-...

...privozn@redhat.com>: >>> On 03.08.2016 21:17, Jonatan Schlag wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> I have a very strange problem with libvirt. I work on some >>>> machines >>>> with >>>> libvirt (Debian/ Arch Linux) and libvirt set the ownership of >>>> images >>>> file automatically to the qemu user / group for example on Arch >>>> Linux to >>>> nobody:kvm. >>>> So when I copy an image file with root and use I then with qemu, >>>> libvirt >>>> c...

Hello, I have winbind set up and working with Linux 2.2.20acl, as far as I can tell everything works except for "Taking Ownership" and modification of permissions by group members. I have a user ( we'll call him "user" ) who is in the DOMAIN+Employees group ( this groups has full control over FILE.doc ). If I try to change permissions from a Windows 2k client, I get an error on the windows side : -- Unab...