Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 20:01:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Gavin Atkinson <gavin.atkinson@ury.york.ac.uk> To: Yar Tikhiy <yar@comp.chem.msu.su> Cc: Bachilo Dmitry <root@solink.ru>, stable@freebsd.org, Tai-hwa Liang <avatar@mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw> Subject: Re: mount_smbfs trouble after cvsup Message-ID: <20060305200015.I89137@ury.york.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <20060224183435.GA66559@comp.chem.msu.su> References: <200602211455.01731.root@solink.ru> <06022119291516.78019@www.mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw> <1140606294.59408.8.camel@buffy.york.ac.uk> <20060224183435.GA66559@comp.chem.msu.su>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Yar Tikhiy wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:04:54AM +0000, Gavin Atkinson wrote: >> Is there a reason this change was made? And is there a reason why > > The change wasn't against NETSMBCRYPTO, it just corrected the way > kernel modules get their options. > >> NETSMBCRYPTO is not in GENERIC? To me, it seems that breaking smbfs >> between releases within 6.x violates POLA... I suspect a large number of >> people (myself included) have always used smbfs for passworded shares >> and it's "just worked". > > This issue is under investigation by the Release Engineers and yours > truly. I'm sorry my change to the kernel module framework caused > the confusion, but so the whole issue has got attention at last. > Of course, it must be fixed before 6.1-R. In the meanwhile, I'd > like to hear about any reservations on making NETSMBCRYPTO the > default case for netsmb/smbfs. Thanks! I don't see any problem with making it the default case, since before the framework cleanup, it effectively was default. Gavin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060305200015.I89137>