Sysadmin Question

[Joel Hammer]

You don't need smbmount to access the samba server from windows.
I agree with you. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Joel
On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 03:46:38PM +0000, jfollansbee at att.net wrote:
> 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