Remove smbwrapper?

derrell at derrell at
Sun Dec 25 15:02:46 GMT 2005

Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE> writes:

> Right now smbwrapper in trunk does not build, mainly because using loadparm.o
> has to pull in tdb and sharesec.o which itself references for example
> prs_mem_free and sec_io_desc.
> I've never used it in production, and last I heard was that it is broken
> anyway. So is it worth putting any energy into it? Alternatively I would
> consider removing it.

I completely rewrote smbwrapper a few years ago because the traditional
smbwrapper stopped working on Linux due to some changes made in the GNU C
library many years ago.  My rewritten version is in the svn tree, at
examples/libsmbclient/smbwrapper.  It works well for my purposes.  I don't
know how anyone else has ever used smbwrapper so I have no idea if it's
generically useful.  Mine also depends on dlsym() being available on the
target machine, as it dynamically determines what functions are available.
This solves the old 32/64-bit conflict problems, but I don't know how
available dlsym() is in other than Linux.

Jerry has considered removing the traditional smbwrapper and replacing it with
mine.  I have no problem with doing that.  If the current version doesn't
compile on the systems that it has compiled on until recently, this may be a
good time to do the change.  It's probably worthwhile, though, having people
test my version on numerous OSs to ensure that it is a reasonable substitute
(and catch bugs or problems that my specific uses have not detected).


More information about the samba-technical mailing list