Messages in this thread | | | From | peloy@ven ... | Subject | Re: smbfs in 2.1.x | Date | 23 May 1998 13:17:43 GMT |
| |
Hi Dave,
David Woodhouse <Dave@imladris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I was asked earlier this evening about smbfs in recent 2.1 kernels, and my > response was basically "RTFM". > > However, I don't think I was being fair. It seems that nobody's actually > _written_ the proverbial FM yet :( > > Would someone like to rewrite Documentation/filesystems/smbfs.txt and add the > 'latest version required' entry in Documentation/Changes?
As far as I know Documentation/filesystems/smbfs.txt is up to date. It says that the smbfs utilities needed are part of the samba package (> 1.9.18). It also documents the switches that can be passed to the mount command of smbmount and discusses the problems with Windows 95 boxes.
Documentation/Changes does not mention anything about smbfs and that can be worked out, as you say.
> While you're at it, tell me what needs doing, and I'll put together some RPMS > if there aren't any already.
I've put together a Debian package for these smbfs utilities. It's called smbfsx since package smbfs has the userland utilities for 2.0.x kernels. The package is part of the upcoming Debian 2.0 (Hamm) release.
> I originally left smbfs alone because I wasn't using it at the time, but I > think the time has come for it to be tidied up.
I don't have any problems with smbfs and Windows NT. However, last time I checked (about a month or so) smbfs was not working properly with Windows 95 boxes. I'll check it out again.
Bye for now.
E.-
--
Eloy A. Paris Information Technology Department Rockwell Automation Venezuela Telephone: +58-2-9432311 Fax: +58-2-9431645
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
| |