svn commit: samba r22973 - in branches: SAMBA_3_0/source/utils
ab at samba.org
Thu May 17 16:41:10 GMT 2007
Jeremy Allison пишет:
> On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 01:56:20PM +0000, ab at samba.org wrote:
>> Author: ab Date: 2007-05-17 13:56:19 +0000 (Thu, 17 May 2007) New
>> Revision: 22973
>> Log: Apparently, 3.0.25 broke smb4k badly ;-)
> Did they not test any of our pre-releases ?
I doubt they test pre-releases. I also see great troubles within GNOME
community with SMB support within GNOME VFS, GVFS rewrite is coming but
they have experienced a lot of crashes (more below).
I think we need to come and explain them proper use of libsmbclient and
our utility (see below for example of misunderstanding).
>> smb4k uses 'net rap server domain' to list servers in domain.
>> Previously we just ignored all arguments in net_rap_server() but
>> now we don't as 'net rap server name' has added an explicit check
>> on arguments.
>> Allow 'net rap server domain' to aid smb4k. Any other arguments
>> will cause help message.
> Fine by me, but please encourage them to test much earlier than this
> and submit bugs back if something gets broken.
I've got this reported by users, not by smb4k developers. Partially my
fault as I didn't bring pre-releases into ALT Linux repositories.
What actually had happened is our documentation for net utility was
unclear on parameters (from net(8)):
RAP SERVER DOMAIN
List all servers in specified domain or workgroup. Defaults to
while in the source net.8.xml we have following:
<title>RAP SERVER <replaceable>DOMAIN</replaceable></title>
<para>List all servers in specified domain or workgroup. Defaults
to local domain.</para>
This <replaceable/> tag is for arguments, i.e. it should be actual
domain name. As you can see, in formatted man page it is all lost, and
smb4k developers treated it wrongly.
To make worse, we didn't take care of arguments in net_rap_server()
before Volker added 'net rap server name', so actual domain argument
came through -w option and never from DOMAIN argument.
This is our fault and unneeded confusion. I think in this particular
case we would be better refactoring code and documentation to stay as
smb4k and others use it.
I think we need to talk to smb4k developers as well as GNOME VFS
developers but also fix our own misdocumentation. Code clean up in net
sub commands would be good too as it has grown considerably and some
parts of it behave differently than expected.
For GNOME attempts see http://hpj.blognaco.com/2007/05/17/gvfs-progress/
/ Alexander Bokovoy
More information about the samba-technical