Need some assistance narrowing down an OOo/gvfs file locking bug
Hi Rene,
I'm in the process of doing some testing with OpenOffice 3.1 from
Debian sid under Gnome -
The environment consists of a samba server (v3.0.23c-4) running on RedHat ES 4
The client is running current Debian sid:
Kernel: 2.6.30.1
Gnome: 2.26+0
openoffice.org: 3.1.0-5
gvfs: 1.2.3-1+b1
samba-common: 3.4-1+b1
In order to force gvfs usage (instead of gnomevfs which I understand
is obsoleted) I have uninstalled the openoffice.org-gnome package on
the sid client, but I did some testing with this as well which I'll
mention later [1] -
If I mount a share on the remote samba fileserver via nautilus/gvfs,
then open a file on that share in OpenOffice, no smb lock is applied
to the file on the server - the result of this is that if any other
client running for example, OOo < 3.0, Microsoft Office, or any other
office suite opens the file, both clients will be granted write access
to the file, resulting in data loss due to one overwriting changes by
the other.
By comparison, if I manually mount the share using mount.cifs, the smb
locking is applied correctly:
fileserver# smbstatus | grep bg_test4.odt
21993 1158 DENY_NONE 0x12019f RDWR EXCLUSIVE
/samba it/Bernard/bg_test4.odt Thu Jul 30 11:46:46 2009
the same command outputs nothing when the file is accessed via gvfs.
My question is - what should I be filing the bug against? I know
OpenOffice explicitly supports gvfs, but is the issue with how
openoffice applies locks over a gvfs mount, or that the mounting
method used by gvfs ignores openoffice's requests to lock the file?
I'm hoping with your more intimate knowledge of OpenOffice and how it
interracts with Linux/Debian you would be able to point me in the
right direction -
Regards,,
Bernard Gray
=========
[1]:
with the openoffice.org-gnome package installed (adding gnomevfs
support to OOo), it seems to apply a RDONLY smb lock, or apply no smb
lock, completely at random... since I understand gnomevfs is being
dropped in favour of gvfs, I don't plan to pursue this bug unless of
course you think it is worth following up separately.
Reply to: