Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:21:21 +0000 From: Carmel NY <carmel_ny@outlook.com> To: FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Possible updating of "mount_smbfs" Message-ID: <BL0PR20MB2098F7C9535D37FF42EC618980D70@BL0PR20MB2098.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> In-Reply-To: <74ad82b9-719d-6acd-c371-bcf6515a0d57@FreeBSD.org> References: <DM5PR20MB21024CFFA05B729FD51C876080D60@DM5PR20MB2102.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> <20181126012820.2f862cc2.freebsd@edvax.de> <BL0PR20MB2098022390FEB4070058D99A80D70@BL0PR20MB2098.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> <74ad82b9-719d-6acd-c371-bcf6515a0d57@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 14:17:17 +0000, Matthew Seaman stated: >On 26/11/2018 12:02, Carmel NY wrote: >> Honestly, it it is not updated to work with SMB3 or better, it is for al= l >> practical purposes, impotent. Perhaps, FreeBSD 12 would be a logical pla= ce >> to put the utility to bed. =20 > >FreeBSD 12.0 is almost out the door, and the chance to make such changes=20 >there is long gone. FreeBSD 12.1 or 13.0 would be where mount_smbfs=20 >could be removed, and now is actually a pretty good point at which to=20 >propose deprecating SMBv1 support for those versions. > >Traditionally, that starts by sending an e-mail to freebsd-arch@... --=20 >if you'ld like to be credited for the suggestion, please by all means do=20 >propose removing mount_smbfs there. Of course, it will need a src=20 >committer to actually do the deed, but that's not likely to be a major=20 >obstacle. > > Cheers, > > Matthew Thanks for the suggestion Matthew. I just sent them an email proposing just that. --=20 Carmel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BL0PR20MB2098F7C9535D37FF42EC618980D70>