On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:31:17 -0400 Jerry McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 20 October 2003 07:37 pm, Michael Hipp wrote: > > Tim Wunder wrote: > > > I've seen something similar to this on comp.protocols.smb, IIRC.... > > > Yes, check out: > > > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=9Xb4b.38159%24 > > >yg.16583965%40news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dfstab%2Bgr > > >oup:comp.protocols.smb%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dcomp.proto > > >cols.smb%26selm%3D9Xb4b.38159%2524yg.16583965%2540news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net% > > >26rnum%3D2 > > > > > > > > > Someone had a similar issue with smb mounts in the fstab file and > > > someone else posted a suitable workaround. > > > > Thanks. That seems to be a serviceable workaround, if a bit inelegant. > > > > Some more searching based on the lead you gave led me to a chap who said > > the answer is to a recompile a newer kernel (something like 2.4.21 or > > better). Bleah. That's too much work. > > > > > > If you ever get around to compiling a new kernel... check out the 2.60 series. > > Quite nice. > Is compiling a kernel more work that screwing around with apps that don't work properly on an older kernel? Second vote for 2.6 kernels. Nothing special, but no bugs have I found in 3 months. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://smtp.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
