On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 07:01:39AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > Moreover, it was stated in this bug that would this bug be a smbfs > > > bug, then it will never be fixed as smbfs support is discontinued in > > > favor of cifs and mount.cifs.
> > We found that cifs was a viable alternativ and we now use that. > > > So, should we really keep this bug opened, ie do you still experience > > > it? > > Yes the bugs is still there but we use mount.cifs. > Well, I suspected this. > So, to samba package maintainers, this raises an issue we've been > imagining for a while: what the hell should with do with smbmount and > smbumount? > smbfs is considered obsolete and users reporting bugs with it are > always suggested using cifs and mount.cifs...which they do as Martin > mentions. > So, should we really continue shipping smbmount and smbumount in the > smbfs package? > What can we do for our users if we plan to remove them? My take on this, up to this point, has been that in spite of the bit rot the smbfs driver continues to address certain use cases that are not handled by any other software in Debian. However, I'm not sure if this is still true; it looks like when set suid root, mount.cifs is capable of letting users mount shares at arbitrary VFS locations, as long as they own the mount point. So I'm not sure if there's still any reason left for keeping smbmount/smbumount, except perhaps as backwards-compatible wrappers for mount/umount.cifs? When we do drop support for smbfs (which means dropping support for 2.4 kernels), if the package name stays the same (is "smbfs" the right name for a cifs-only support package?), we should probably add a NEWS.Debian item for it. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
