search for: ownerships

Hi all, I am new to Asterik. Ia m trying to compile the source with the latest asterisk-1.6.2.0 these are the issues I am getting. initially,I got 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

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

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

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 25 September 2014 06:16, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > I can go & dredge up some examples if we want to discuss the particular > > merits & whether each of those cases would be better solved in some other > > way, but it seemed pervasive enough in the

"May you live in interesting times" Is this a curse or a blessing? :) I've just tested a 3.1.5 GlusterFS native client against a 3.1.3 storage pool using this volume: Volume Name: pfs-rw1 Type: Distributed-Replicate Status: Started Number of Bricks: 2 x 2 = 4 Transport-type: tcp Bricks: Brick1: jc1letgfs16-pfs1:/export/read-write/g01 Brick2: jc1letgfs13-pfs1:/export/read-write/g01

...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, :i...

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 with incorrect ownership and permissions. It's around 120GB or...

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); }" - Modules end up owned by the context and cleaned up there). Might be hard

In the most basic case, I'd imagine something like this: auto C = std::make_shared<LLVMContext>(); struct ModuleAndSharedContextDeleter { std::shared_ptr<LLVMContext> C; operator()(Module *M) { delete M; } /* ctor to init C */}; std::unique_ptr<Module, ModuleAndSharedDeleter> M(new Module(C.get()), ModuleAndSharedContextDeleter(C)); (or invert this and traffic in structs

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

After upgrading my puppetmaster to 0.24.7 from 0.24.6 i am getting the following errors in the puppetmaster logs. Any help would be appreciated. Thu Dec 18 16:11:39 +1100 2008 Puppet (err): Could not store configs: undefined method `environment='' for #<Puppet::Rails::Host:0xb72c0c38> I do not use environment''s and they are not defined anywhere in the puppet.conf

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

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

Hi All, ORC's new concurrent compilation model generates some interesting lifetime and thread safety questions around LLVMContext: We need multiple LLVMContexts (one per module in the simplest case, but at least one per thread), and the lifetime of each context depends on the execution path of the JIT'd code. We would like to deallocate contexts once all modules associated with them have

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

On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Argyrios Kyrtzidis <akyrtzi at gmail.com> wrote: > Could we consider moving the things you 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. >

Hello everyone, I bring to discussion the necessity/design of a new type of smart pointer. r215176 and r217791 rise the problem, D5443 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D5443> is devoted to the solution. r215176 applies several temporary ugly fixes of memory leaks in TGParser.cpp which would be great to be refactored using smart pointers. D5443 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D5443> demonstrates

Am Do, 4. Aug, 2016 um 1:38 schrieb Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>: > On 04.08.2016 12:12, Jonatan Schlag wrote: >> >> >> Am Do, 4. Aug, 2016 um 11:32 schrieb Michal Privoznik >> <mprivozn@redhat.com>: >>> On 03.08.2016 21:17, Jonatan Schlag wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> I have a very strange problem with libvirt. I

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