Jaca wrote: > [emoji23] since when workaround isn't solution? > > What's wrong with this particular one? > I would argue it's better still then package which potentially could > expose whole NAS if there were any security holes.. With docker you are > only providing access to specific shared folders and as read only.. > > Just to double check you are aware you not actually change any folder > structure or duplicate data with symlink? Don't understand why you are > against that.. It's simple solution to map multiple shared folders to > LMS / overcome docker LMS limitationIIRC it used to be the recommended way to > use multiple music folder in older versions of LMS before settings were added for extra folders. I could be wrong though.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk ------------------------------------------------------------------------ slartibartfast's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=35609 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=111828 _______________________________________________ unix mailing list unix@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/unix
