<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 10, 2008 6:26 PM, Steve Langasek <<a href="mailto:vorlon@debian.org">vorlon@debian.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Randy,<br><br>On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 04:58:21PM -0800, Randy Coulman wrote:<br>> Package: smbfs<br>> Version: 3.0.28-1<br>> Severity: important<br><br><br>According to<br><<a href="http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20080110.202840.d90c205e.en.html" target="_blank">
http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20080110.202840.d90c205e.en.html</a>>, DFS<br>support for Linux CIFS is already on the roadmap for inclusion in 2.6.25,<br>which will be out well before the lenny release. I realize this doesn't
<br>help you with your immediate need for smbfs support, but I do think that<br>dropping smbfs in favor of cifs is the right course of action for lenny.<br><font color="#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br>I understand this, and I totally agree. I just think the timing of the change was off. There should be plenty of time to completely drop smbfs after DFS support is in and working. Leaving smbfs in place but deprecated until cifs is able to do the whole job that smbfs did would be preferable, IMO.
<br><br>Given that I haven't seen a lot of traffic on this issue in my web searches suggests I'm in a smaller minority than I thought, though. I would have expected DFS-based servers to be a lot more common than they seem to be.
<br><br>Thanks for the reply,<br>Randy<br></div></div>-- <br>Randy Coulman<br><a href="mailto:rcoulman@gmail.com">rcoulman@gmail.com</a>