W dniu 29.10.2021 o 08:29, Andrea Venturoli pisze:
On 10/29/21 00:47, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
But possibly we need to delete current smbfs code from base and switch
to ports (sysutils/*?) if it require some code having incompatible
license for base.
+1 for removing smbfs(5) from the base and eventually moving it to the
ports tree. I know some people are still using it with a bit of duct
tape and baling twine to workaround SMBv{2,3) incompatibility.
With SMBv1 support, only our smbfs(5) became useless a few years ago.
Unfortunately, there is no replacement in the ports tree. To mount SMB
shares for Nextcloud the port net/pecl-smbclient can be used, but
definitely deploying Nextcloud to mount only SMB shares is overkill.
OTOH having a port is not in any way worse as having a broken piece of
base.
It sounds reasonable. Moreover, the story of net/wireguard-kmod has
proven that moving some modules into ports, where the software
development is done in a more flexible way, can be beneficial for both:
the developers and the community.
My opinion is only the opinion of the FreeBSD user, but I believe that
sometimes the feedback from the userbase is important, especially that a
few months I was told by one of the younger *NIX admins that our
(FreeBSD) community is the best and he is willing to make a transition
of some services to FreeBSD as soon as he gets permission from the
management.
With kind regards,
--
Marek Zarychta
