smbwall

[Green, Paul]

Scott,

The last time I ported Samba to my highly-POSIX-compatible-but-not-Unix
environment, I had an easy time of it.  I don't have pseudo-ttys, PAM,
dynamic linking, or a host of other Unix-but-not-POSIX capabilities.  I have
no objection to adding features to Samba as long as you hack the build
script to probe for the features and gracefully continue if they are not
present.

Thanks
PG
--
Paul Green, Senior Technical Consultant, Stratus Technologies.
Voice: +1 978-461-7557; FAX: +1 978-461-3610; Video on request.



-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Gifford [mailto:sgifford at suspectclass.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2002 8:17 AM
To: Andrew Bartlett
Cc: David Lee; Garry J. Garrett; samba-technical at lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: smbwall


Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at pcug.org.au> writes:

> Scott Gifford wrote:
> > 
> > Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at pcug.org.au> writes:
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > > However, any attempt to make smbd create /dev/ entries is, in my
> > > opinion, highly misguided. The consequences in case of error and the
> > > cross-platform issues are a major concern to me.  As such, I greatly
> > > favor handling this outside smbd where the admin can configure such an
> > > arrangement to his/her liking.
> > 
> > Out of curiosity, do you have any technical objections to allocating a
> > pseudo-TTY for this purpose, if the admin requests it in the config
> > file?  I think that's the easiest solution to this.
> 
> I would have to see the proposal.  It would be a cross-platform
> nightmare, but if you propose a suitable 'plugin' interface, that coudld
> be accepted.

Allocating pseudo-TTYs on UNIX is pretty much either SysV or BSD
style, across all Unices, AFAIK.  Where are you concerned about
portability nightmares?

-----ScottG.