s4: "lp_workgroup()" vs. "lp_sam_name()"

Volker Lendecke Volker.Lendecke at SerNet.DE
Sun Oct 18 11:46:19 MDT 2009

On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 04:46:29PM +0000, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
> There are more than 100 calls to those functions. Since I
> didn't find out which are the exact rules when to call the
> first - and when the latter we should do some better check
> since I doubt that all invocations are okay.

Unless you have concrete bugs where the wrong value is
taken, I would just not touch them. It's like with the const
warnings: Why change things that are not known to be broken?

I get the impression that you doubt everything that the
Samba developers have ever put in. We are not perfect, but
we are no beginners either.

What bugs do you want to fix by doing sweeping changes to
those parameter?


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.samba.org/pipermail/samba-technical/attachments/20091018/d8471c7a/attachment.pgp>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list