deprecating smbmount ?

[Andrew Bartlett]

On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 05:32 +0200, Guenter Kukkukk wrote:
> Not only dedicated to the famous samba team and Steve French doing the cifs development
> - also to the maintainers, which now already started to ship "stripped" versions whithout former information, i.e FC5

>   - THEN the (RPM ...) distro maintainers should inform their customers/users ... and follow the same time frame

Distribution maintainers have to decide which features they are able to
support.  

Supporting smbmount has been quite painful for some distributors (and
indeed the Samba Team), which have spent much time referring users to
cifsfs.

The problem is, users they complain about the missing large file and smb
signing support as 'bugs', because it 'almost works'.  Removing the
option of smbfs makes users search for a new solution, rather than
implementing the old one, only to get badly bitten later.

I realise it is a problem in your situation, but I wanted to make it
clear what started this course of action.

Andrew Bartlett

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                http://samba.org/~abartlet/
Authentication Developer, Samba Team           http://samba.org
Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc.                  http://redhat.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/attachments/20060810/d30b257b/attachment.bin