From: Sam M. <pa...@gm...> - 2007-02-26 16:00:30
|
Mmm, cifs should be in there as a module, I just checked the latest autobuild and the module was there in it. Sam On 27/02/07, Ryan Underwood <nem...@ic...> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 01:15:42AM +1000, Sam Moffatt wrote: > > Well if you had of noted your issue clearer I probably wouldn't have > > done my antinewb attack as from time to time newbs do come in here > > asking really stupid questions and your statement that Samba != fs > > mount was taken as one of those moments. I apologise as my attack was > > unrequired and its good to see you've solved the issue. Statically > > compiling in smb is a bit of a quirky thing I will admit but given its > > the easiest way to get to the host it also makes sense. > > > > For future reference the kernel config files are available in the > > source packages. > > Something else to note, and this is what mislead me initially, if you > try to use /sbin/mount.cifs instead of smbmount (i.e. because you want > to use the kernel cifs instead of smbfs), it doesn't work because only > smbfs and not CIFS is compiled in. Using CIFS instead of smbfs is > considered the correct thing to do nowadays since smbfs is unmaintained. > > -- > Ryan Underwood, <ne...@ic...> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFF4v6+IonHnh+67jkRAmVWAKC3OqTsk5AOyEuAM5jDStCNBPojlACfY8u9 > umpINE6PBwROMUMSELwUXFg= > =FOs9 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > |