kincera at gmail.com
Mon May 7 18:09:40 GMT 2007
No offense, but it sounds like you are venting about something that
wasn't enabled for the packages in your particular distro of choice. If
so, it seems to me that this is the wrong venue to vent. I would suggest
contacting the vendor, distro maintainer and/or package maintainer with
your concerns. Or continue to roll your own packages for whichever
distro you choose. If you feel inspired, write a howto for it (if one
doesn't already exist) so that people don't reinvent the wheel. Also it
would help in case you forget something and don't have to resolve old
Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2007/05/07 10:44 (GMT-0500) Gerald (Jerry) Carter apparently typed:
>>> On 2007/05/07 13:46 (GMT+0100) John G Walker apparently typed:
>>> I think SUSE is saying the same thing as other distros. They
>>> prefer to give you maintained but dysfunctional CIFS over
>>> functional but unmaintained networking support. NAICT,
>>> the kernel developers are the root of the problem, not Novell.
>> This entire smbfs vs. cifs ongoing discussion is not helpful.
>> And frankly, it is just a little silly. Old code goes away
>> and is replaced by new code. Are you willing to maintain
>> the smbfs code? No? Neither was anyone else. So it's not
>> kernel developers that are the problem. But simply disinterest
>> or lack of time from the community of people using and/or
>> developing kernel code.
> That's all well and good to say, but the fact is my old distro had
> networking that worked just fine for me, but fell out of support, so I had
> to upgrade to a newer distro in order to maintain access to security fixes.
> Now that I've upgraded, I have broken networking, unless I recompile to
> include the "unsupported" module that actually works to replace the
> "supported" module that is known to not work for everyone. I really don't
> care what's "supported", only that my networking actually works.
>> If you have bugs, then please file them at https://bugzilla.samba.org/
>> under the "CIFS VFS" component. Tell Steve French about them.
> "I" don't file bugs on samba because it's all over my head. I'm not a
> developer. When I find something that doesn't work, as has routinely been
> the case trying to network Linux released distros with OS/2 since the first
> release of samba version 3, I go to various forums to try to find current
> solutions, and try to apprise those who do understand so that they can find
> existing or file new bugs as they deem appropriate. See e.g.
> https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4090 and the other bugs in
> http://tinyurl.com/3xbcp9 where there are open bugs dating back as long as 3
> years. With bugs there and relevant to me going so long unfixed, there seems
> little point in filing any more.
> Waiting on Steve French seems to be something that once started seems never
> to end. If anything deserves a rant, it should be about virtually total
> dependance of a component on one person whose work stays in a private tree
> for weeks or more on end (which is my limited and possibly broken
> understanding of the state of the relationship between CIFS and SF).
>> The smbfs code was good in its time but has long since suffered
>> from bit rot.
> All I know is if I recompile to reenable SMBFS I have networking that is no
> worse than it was before upgrading the OS to a supported version, quite
> unlike networking with CIFS.
More information about the samba