Enrique Sanchez Vela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> this might be better, since your working config file
> does not get overwritten by accident.
That's not an issue in my case, since I'm installing into an empty
prefix. I just want to understand why it acted differently this time.
2.2.3a was the f
On Mon, May 06, 2002 at 01:12:56PM -0700, Enrique Sanchez Vela wrote:
> Paul,
>
> I dont recall getting any smb.conf file when
> installed 2.2.3a however I might be wrong, besides
> this might be better, since your working config file
> does not get overwritten by accident.
I don't believe sam
Paul,
I dont recall getting any smb.conf file when
installed 2.2.3a however I might be wrong, besides
this might be better, since your working config file
does not get overwritten by accident.
regards,
esv.
--- Paul Jarc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just installed 2.2.4 into an initially em
I just installed 2.2.4 into an initially empty prefix, and there is no
smb.conf in .../lib. Should I worry? When I installed 2.2.3a
similarly, it installed its own smb.conf.
paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailm