Should we keep smbwrapper?
jelmer at samba.org
Fri Feb 3 05:20:13 MST 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 02/03/2012 05:25 AM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> What is the status of smbwrapper? I notice that you did a major rework
> on it in 2002. I've been unable to get it to work in 3.5 or even
> compile in master.
> I would also rather like to rid Samba of all the configure checks that
> this code entails, and an any case, it seems there are much better ways
> to create a virtual file system these days, with FUSE, gvfs or just
> using a cifs kernel mount.
> I'm also worried that it cannot be complete - it does not include the
> new dup3 for example, and probably many other calls. We have no
> testsuite for it either.
> Finally, I would like to see it removed so as to avoid giving others any
> strange ideas, as tridge's blog at http://blog.tridgell.net/?p=141 shows
> how, when this idea is taken to the extreme, this can go horribly,
> horribly wrong.
> Let me know what you think.
There is a fair amount of work involved in keeping this hack going, and
it's specific to just smb.
I think it would make more sense to provide a project like this on top
of e.g. gvfs. That way you don't get just support for smb://, but
support for other protocols as well, and you can e.g. share connections
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the samba-technical