Opened 17 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
#28 closed defect (invalid)
'write list' option - users in the write list do not get write access on a read only share
Reported by: | guest | Owned by: | Silvan Scherrer |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Feedback Pending | Milestone: | Samba Server for eCS (OS/2) 1.1.x |
Component: | Samba Server | Version: | 3.0.25b |
Keywords: | write list read only | Cc: | herwig.bauernfeind@… |
Description
I try give anybody read-only access for "myshare", and write access to vipuser:
[myshare]
path = D:\path\dir read only = yes write list = vipuser
But vipuser cannot write... ("write list = @vipgroup" do not worked too)
Change History (11)
comment:1 by , 17 years ago
comment:2 by , 17 years ago
Resolution: | → invalid |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
That is the expected behaviour according to the Samba manual - a write list to a read only ressource does not make sense. RTFM please.
comment:3 by , 17 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|---|
Keywords: | write list read only added |
Resolution: | invalid |
Status: | closed → reopened |
Summary: | 'write list' option → 'write list' option - users in the write list do not get write access on a read only share |
While parts of the Samba docs are ambigous - the scenario is a valid one and the defect is reproducible.
Users that should have write access to a read only share can neither create new files nor edit present files.
comment:4 by , 17 years ago
I think this is working as designed. To do what the user wants, consider a share like the following example: ; A publicly accessible directory, but read only, except for people in ; the staff group [public]
comment = Public Stuff path = u:/ public = yes writable = yes printable = no write list = @staff
This share is public (& read only) to all users, but only writable to the users/groups listed in write list
comment:5 by , 16 years ago
Milestone: | → Samba Server for OS/2 1.0.1 |
---|
comment:6 by , 16 years ago
Milestone: | Samba Server for eCS (OS/2) 1.0.1 → Samba Server for eCS (OS/2) 1.0.2 |
---|
comment:7 by , 15 years ago
Version: | → 3.0.25b |
---|
comment:8 by , 15 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | reopened → new |
what to do with this? is it working as designed or is it a bug?
comment:9 by , 15 years ago
Priority: | critical → major |
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
comment:10 by , 13 years ago
Priority: | major → Feedback Pending |
---|
hmm still no decision if it's working as designed or if it's a bug.
comment:11 by , 11 years ago
Resolution: | → invalid |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
this is working as designed.
There are missing EOLs in example:
[myshare]