Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 10:45:25 -0700 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> To: bp@butya.kz Cc: mi@aldan.algebra.com, kris@obsecurity.org, gordont@bluemtn.net, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mount_mfs (Re: smbfs) Message-ID: <20010525104525O.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0105252158110.42982-100000@lion.butya.kz> References: <200105250235.f4P2ZjG35815@aldan.algebra.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0105252158110.42982-100000@lion.butya.kz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
FWIW, I vote for having it in the base system. To leave it out would sort of be like having full support for DOS filesystems in the kernel (which we do) but require that the user go elsewhere for the mount_msdos command which makes it actually usable (which thankfully we don't). POLA would dictate it either be completely bundled or completely unbundled, and I think "bundled" makes sense since SMB is just about as popular a distributed filesystem mechanism as NFS is. - Jordan From: Boris Popov <bp@butya.kz> Subject: Re: mount_mfs (Re: smbfs) Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 22:04:09 +0700 (ALMST) > On Thu, 24 May 2001, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > > > > It's in the smbfs port. > > > > Shouldn't it move to the base system now? > > There is no any technical problems in doing that. But I'm unsure > if this should be done (code is not very small). On other hand, people > expect it in the base system... Probably we should collect more votes on > this topic. > > P.S. Sorry for delays, but I'm really overloaded in these days :( > -- > Boris Popov > http://www.butya.kz/~bp/ > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010525104525O.jkh>