On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:23:05PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > Ok I see. What alternative do you propose for Samba ? Should > we just disable quota support on Linux and tell people to use > an OS with real quota support ? This would not be good for many > of our users.
That's one option - you'll just get a bunch of screaming users.. The other option would be to just copy the quota headers from the Linux quota package instead of relying on changing kernels. > > I'm so sick of these apps including kernel headers, we should just > > disallow it in 2.5 completly. > > Sounds good to me. So do you recommend Samba users requiring quota > support migrate to FreeBSD, OS/X, Solaris, IRIX or HPUX (all of > which provide quota support without having to include kernel header > files :-) :-) ? At least on FreeBSD you actually have to include a kernel header. But as FreeBSD only supports UFS quotas adn doesn't try to support multiple kernel interfazce versions with the same userspace binaries it's a rather different issue. Fixing Samba is of course another option, but maybe a large-scale migration is in fact easier.. 8) -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba