Re: smb: more than broken?

Alan Cox (
Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:34:32 +0000 (GMT)

> Noticing that there has been a lot of work on smbfs in 2.1, I was
> particularly eager to try it out, to see what the improvements are.
> I am disappointed, to say the least.

If you want nice packaging go and sit in your cubicle until it comes out
on a nice little easy to use mail order CD for 2.2.

> from scratch (no binaries), and both require *heavy* modification to
> build at all. They seem to make bizarre assumptions about a correlation
> between /usr/include and /usr/include/linux (that's deadly in the age of
> glibc). I got mine to build only after much heartache, and with many
> warnings.

> * Roll 'smbmount' into 'mount'. If 'smbclient' is really necessary, let
> 'mount' start it up.
> * Either get the samba people to include a new, working 'smbclient' with
> samba, or drop it and maintain our own.
> If I can help with any of this, let me know how. I'd start an ftp site
> to hold the corrected smbclient & smbmount, but I think that stuff
> should be fixed at the source (samba) or rolled into the existing
> 'mount' command (NFS uses 'mount', why can't we?).

Well yep. Go ahead and put the cleaned smbclient and mount up somewhere
and when tested submit them to the maintainer of util-linux. You can then
update the kernel docs and things to reflect it.