Sysadmin Question

[jfollansbee at att.net]

This is interesting. Even though I didn't compile with 
the smbmount option, I've been able to set everything up 
the way I want it, although I had to kludge the printing 
a bit. I discovered that

c:\>net use lpt1: \\server\printer

on Win2K sets up the printer just fine, and I've been 
able to print Word docs, etc. I created a one line batch 
file which sets the printer at startup. However, I still 
get the "Access Denied" message from the Printer window. 
Funky, huh? I also did a quick inventory of the binaries 
and it seems I have everything. At this point, I guess 
I'm inclined to let things stand, at least until I need 
more samba functionality.

Thoughts?

Joe
--
Joe Follansbee
Streaming Media Producer/Consultant
206-932-7578
http://www.follansbeeconsulting.com
		
	
			
> This means you will be missing some binaries from the new distribution,
> the ones specific to linux which allow mounting of windows shares, etc.
> I would recompile with: configure --with-smbmount.
> You'll see all the binaries in /usr/local/samba/bin after that.
> And no, they don't mention it in the documentation. You have to read the
> configure file. I know. I made the exact same mistake.
> Joel
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 02:53:38AM +0000, jfollansbee at att.net wrote:
> > Uh, actually I didn't configure --with-smbmount. I 
> > didn't see that this was important in the documentation. 
> > Did I goof?
> > 
> > Joe
> > --
> > Joe Follansbee
> > Streaming Media Producer/Consultant
> > 206-932-7578
> > http://www.follansbeeconsulting.com
> > 		
> > 	
> > 			
> > > You could rpm -e the old installation. It likely won't harm anything. I
> > > would just make sure you your backed up your smb.conf file, just in case.
> > > You can have conflicts with the old binaries. They will be in your path,
> > > whereas the new binaries are not in your path, since they are in
> > > /usr/local/samba/bin. Thus, if you run smbmount without a path, you'll run
> > > the old binary.
> > > (You did configure samba with --with-smbmount ?)
> > > Joel
> > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 01:23:52AM +0000, jfollansbee at att.net wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I just installed Samba 2.2.2, using the default 
> > > > installation directories, on a RH 7.2 system. It seems 
> > > > to be up and running fine, but I still have the old 
> > > > 2.2.1a files installed the way RH likes them. I'm not a 
> > > > guru, so should I worry about this? Should I uninstall 
> > > > the 2.2.1a files? Will there be any conflicts? Should I 
> > > > care?
> > > > 
> > > > Many thanks.
> > > > 
> > > > Joe
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Joe Follansbee
> > > > Streaming Media Producer/Consultant
> > > > 206-932-7578
> > > > http://www.follansbeeconsulting.com
> > > > 		
> > > > 	
> > > > 			
> > > > 
> > > > -- 
> > > > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> > > > instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
> > 
> > -- 
> > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> > instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions:  http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba