trailing quotes in smb.conf parameters (was FEATURE REQ: safe % expansion...)

[Andy Bakun]

<rant mode on>
I looked up that link for a reason and hoped that people would actually take a
second to read the post that it links to.  I take it that it never was cleared
up because it generated little discussion and people who are more qualified
than me to comment on it can not even be bothered to read the link I posted to
the original problem _before_ commenting on it.  Personally, I would rather
people not say anything than say things that are completely off-base.  I spent
the time to look up that original post because I want to make it as easy as
possible to get this resolved and to show that it's been an open issue.  The
mailing list archive exists for a reason, I'd like to think that I'm using it
as intended.
<rant mode off>

Sorry about the rant, this isn't the best forum for it; I understand that
people are busy.  But I think that if someone can be bothered to spend 15
seconds to post a message concerning a topic, they can spend 5 seconds to
actually find out what the topic is about.  Perhaps it is my fault for not
offering a summary.  I blame myself for that.  A summary of the issue follows.

The issue was, for those of you who actually are following along at home, that
quotes that end on a line in smb.conf do not get copied correctly to the
output when, I believe, standard_sub_* is run on them.  This causes problems
with parameters which have values that are passed to /bin/sh for processing,
like the "print command" parameter.  A slightly more indepth explaination is
available at http://us1.samba.org/listproc/samba-technical/old/4060.html.

The word "quote" does not appear in the change log with 2.0.6 (WHATSNEW.txt).

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

> if this was a proposal to have scripts run inside smb.conf processing,
> then no, it's not going to be added.
>
> if you want to do that, run the scripts to _generate_ the smb.conf files
> as part of some external admin task.
>
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2000, Andy Bakun wrote:
>
> > On this note, was the issue I posted in
> >
> > http://us1.samba.org/listproc/samba-technical/old/4060.html
> >
> > ever cleared up?