hi Jeremy, On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:04:47PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 08:51:06AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote: > > > > Known problem, with no fix yet AFAIK. It is not really related to > > XFS at all, you're tripping it in XFS because we include some quite > > recent quota patches in the XFS CVS trees (ie. the patches that've > > just recently gone into 2.5.17) - you will find that you can no > > longer build Samba with quota enabled if you have Linus' current > > 2.5 headers below /usr/include/linux also. > > > > This is a problem which needs to be fixed in Samba sources, they'll > > need to have a local quota header file, rather than using the ones > > below /usr/include/linux > > Why should we have to have a local quota header file ? Why can't > it work on Linux like every other UNIX system - we don't need a > local quota.h for them ?
Ah, I should have phrased that differently. It doesn't have to be a local header, it just can't be a kernel header. Last time this was discussed, consensus seemed to be that a local header in Samba would be best. An alternative which was discussed briefly the last time this came up, would be for the quota package to provide a new header (eg. #include <quota/*.h>) and maybe a library... which other folks like Samba could easily test for and make use of. > This is not a Samba problem IMHO., but a Linux one. Hmm... I think the direct inclusion of kernel headers in Samba is going to have to change, no matter what solution is implemented. cheers. -- Nathan -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba