From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on sa.int.altlinux.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Message-ID: <4AE1640A.1090603@mmedia2.kemsu.ru> Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:06:34 +0800 From: REAL User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ALT Linux Sisyphus discussions References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [sisyphus] smbfs vs cifs X-BeenThere: sisyphus@lists.altlinux.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ALT Linux Sisyphus discussions List-Id: ALT Linux Sisyphus discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 07:49:50 -0000 Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Post: Eugene Prokopiev пишет: > Наблюдаю странное поведение cifs по сравнению с smbfs: А где тут cifs? > # mount.smbfs //server/folder /shared/folder -o > file_mode=0666,dir_mode=0777,password='' [...] > # mount.smbfs //server/folder /shared/folder -o > fmask=0666,dmask=0777,password='' > Это баг или я что-то делаю неправильно? В набор опций попробуйте noperm добавить. mount.smbfs //server/folder /shared/folder -o user=логин,noperm -- REAL aka Евгений Ростовцев, программист ЦНИТ КемГУ