similar to: rsync: chgrp ... Operation not permitted

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11414 Bug ID: 11414 Summary: rsync: chgrp "/.filename.5afK5X" (in dirdir) failed: Operation not permitted (1) Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: x64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11414 --- Comment #2 from Michal Ruprich <mruprich at redhat.com> --- I stumbled upon this bug and I have a question. I get the chgrp error even when running the daemon as root. #ps -aux | grep rsync root 18486 0.0 0.0 114696 568 ? Ss 09:41 0:00 rsync --daemon I have configured a module in /etc/rsyncd.conf like this: [my_data]

Can you please tell me what is the meaning of the following error message? rsync: chgrp "/media/LINUXBACKUP/backup/sample/sample/mozilla1.5/mozilla/dom/src/data/.svn/text-base/20070227225544.tar.svn-base" failed: Operation not permitted (1)

i use chgrp -R "Domain Users" /profiles for example but i receive no such group available in chgrp command what i must do to be able to have the samba groups available in linux environment using the the chgrp and accepting them. thank you

i am using chgrp and chown to change ownership from centos command line of paths for example domain users to use it in chgrp bur it is telling me the error that no such group exist. what i must do to be able to use samba users and groups from command line using chown and chgrp thank you

Dear Samba users and admins, I am trying to deploy Samba4 as a domain controller and a file server and having some issues.* The domain have been well provisioned with option --use-rfc2307 I am then trying to create share by following this samba wiki https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Shares_with_Windows_ACLs The problem is that i cannot succeed to change the group owner of the folder I want to

I just noticed that on centso 4.5 I have an executable with the +s (chmod +s myexe) doing a chmod root myexe and chown root myexe does NOT affect the +s setting. However, on centos 5 this is not the case. chmod +s myexe chown root myexe or chgrp root myexe will DROP the +s status. How can I get around this? I want to keep the owner, group, world settings. Thanks, Jerry

Greetings, i had a following problem, which on one side i have already solved, but on other side i don't thing it should behave this way and wish somebody to tell if it is feature or bug ;-) [root at machine home]# chown user user/ [root at machine home]# ls -ld /home/user drwxr-xr-x 66 user staff 4096 /home/user [root at machine home]# chgrp -R staff user/ [root at machine home]# ls -ld

Hi Denis, Thank you for your mail. I assigned the GID 10000 to the domain admins group through ADUC, and wbinfo --info-group "domain admins" display the correct output. But i am still not able to execute succesfuly #chgrp "Domain Admins" /home/demo And when i go to ADUC and try to open the Unix Attribute of domain admins group, i have the error "Unable to

I am familiar with this article http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA#multipleuids I want to disable setuid-root, but I don't know the default group and permissions. sudo chgrp root /usr/libexec/dovecot/dovecot-lda sudo chmod 00750 /usr/libexec/dovecot/dovecot-lda but my delivery is still failing Nov 9 18:22:39 vl42 postfix/pipe[23039]: DEC54700B1: to=<user at domain.com>, orig_to=<user at

I'm using a comand like rsync -av directory /media/usbdisk/ to backup to a usb device (on a Fedora 5 machine). I'm getting 100s of messages like rsync: chgrp "/media/usbdisk/file" failed: Operation not permitted (1) and then at the end rsync error: some files could not be transferred. How do I fix this? Why is rsync trying to change the group? And is the message at

Hi all, Is there an R wrapper for chown/chgrp (a la Sys.chmod)? I couldn't find one with a few minutes of searching, but it seems like a curious omission. Thanks, Hadley -- Assistant Professor Department of Statistics / Rice University http://had.co.nz/

Dear all, thank you for your previous mails. It realy help me. Denis, Following your mail and thanks to the link i configure my /etc/nsswitch.conf file by adding windbind to user and group line and execute winbindd command. As i install samba4 from sernet package, init script are created for starting AD, smbd, nmbd and winbindd. But i read that smbd, nmd and winbindd should be disable to

I have 2 user groups accessing documents in /export/docs: staff and exec. I need to give users in the group 'staff' the ability to create folders and documents in /export/docs. On creation of (either) folders or documents in /export/docs, all items should be owned by their respective creators AND users in the 'exec' group; thus: # ll /export/docs/ -rwxrwxr-- user1 exec

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1541 Summary: sftp: the do_stat() failure is ignored for chown, chgrp ops. in parse_dispatch_command() Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: -current Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: trivial Priority: P5 Component: sftp

Timo, I did further study of the user/group permissions. Applying the below patch will make no difference to virtually everyone out there. Those that have default uid/gid ownership won't see any change as the gid already matches so the fchown() action won't be attempted. Those that have sgid will still see the normal expected fchown() enforced by the kernel which becomes a duplicated

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 There is an update to LHA for CentOS 3.1 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2004-178.html refers.

Hi Timo, I've configured the user nobody for the the service auth. doveconf -n # 2.0.alpha3: /usr/local/etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # OS: Linux 2.6.30-1-amd64 x86_64 Debian squeeze/sid ? service auth { user = nobody } ? The other processes are executed by root (or logged in user): root 8758 0.0 0.0 2604 1052 ? Ss 07:21 0:00 /usr/local/sbin/dovecot root 8759 0.0

Here's another data point that may be useful. [Scheduling experts, please help! :) ] If the two-byte bitfield is replaced by a two-byte struct (replace "short i:8" with "short i", etc.), the scheduler properly generates a dependency between the store and the load. For this case, a GEP is used instead of a bitcast:

Greetings, I'm investigating a bug in the PowerPC back end in which a load from a storage address is being reordered prior to a store to the same storage address. I'm quite new to LLVM, so I would appreciate some help understanding what I'm seeing from the dumps. I assume that some information is missing that would represent the memory dependency, but I don't know what form that