NTFS vs. Samba

[Corinna Vinschen]

On Aug 29 11:17, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> At 05:02 PM 8/29/2004 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >  bool is_ntfs = !strcmp (fsname, "NTFS");
> >  bool is_samba = is_ntfs && is_remote_drive ()
> >		  && !(flags () & FILE_FILE_COMPRESSION);
> >  has_ea ((is_ntfs && !is_samba) || !strcmp (fsname, "FAT"));
> >  has_acls ((flags () & FS_PERSISTENT_ACLS)
> >	    && (allow_smbntsec || !is_samba));
> >
> >Any good reason not to do this?
> 
> Yes. At work I believe I have a real remote NTFS, on which ordinary users
> have no permission to change ACLs. Thus it's crucial to be able to allow
> ntsec on the local machine but not on the remote machine.
> Perhaps smbntsec could take 3 values: off, on everywhere, on on real NTFS.

Hm, no, that's getting too complicated.  Sic.  Ok, scratch the idea.
It won't make sense to support EA on remote drives either then.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader          mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com
Red Hat, Inc.