Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 02:41:00 +0800 (SGT) From: Quark <unixuser2000-fbsd@yahoo.com> To: Matthias Apitz <guru@unixarea.de>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mount_smbfs in base? Message-ID: <1370025660.3819.YahooMailNeo@web190701.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20130531183152.GA847@tiny.Sisis.de> References: <1370023798.22796.YahooMailNeo@web190704.mail.sg3.yahoo.com> <20130531183152.GA847@tiny.Sisis.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message ----- > From: Matthias Apitz <guru@unixarea.de> > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, 1 June 2013 12:01 AM > Subject: Re: mount_smbfs in base? > > El día Saturday, June 01, 2013 a las 02:09:58AM +0800, Quark escribió: > >> is mount_smbfs, smbutil and friends part of base system? this is FreeBSD > amd64 9.1-RELEASE > > $ which mount_smbfs > /usr/sbin/mount_smbfs > $ which smbutil > /usr/bin/smbutil I saw that, but suspected I must have done something stupid that those binaries got placed there. > >> then what is extra in samba port? > > a SMB client and server so this SMB client is recentish than what is in base? I 'guess' samba was GPL, is it OK to let live GPL s/w in base when such strides are being attempted to oust GCC? > > matthias > -- > Sent from my FreeBSD netbook > > Matthias Apitz | - No system with backdoors like Apple/Android > E-mail: guru@unixarea.de | - Never being an iSlave > WWW: http://www.unixarea.de/ | - No proprietary attachments, no HTML/RTF in > E-mail > phone: +49-170-4527211 | - Respect for open standards > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1370025660.3819.YahooMailNeo>