On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 02:47:17AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > smbfs has the unfortunate quality of momentum. A lot of users aren't > > aware of CIFS at all since smbfs basically does what they need it to > > do. Some extra warning for those users would be nice.
> And many users will start whining loudly that the not deprecated driver > (in this case cifs) has this or that bug not before the patch to finally > remove the deprecated feature got applied or at least posted. > And will demand that it therefore does not get removed. We've had about 3 of these in Debian since deciding to cut it from the upcoming release. (The kicker for us was the samba security update that wasn't tested with smbfs as a client.) The key regressions of interest relative to smbfs seem to be: - lack of DFS support - lack of netbios name resolution for UNC share names The former seems to be a kernel issue whose resolution is in progress, and I think the latter would have to be addressed in the userspace mount tools? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/