From: Ryan U. <nem...@ic...> - 2007-02-23 23:33:13
|
I posted a feature request on the sourceforge page that cifsfs/smbfs support be added to the kernel config for coLinux so that the shares of the Windows host can be mounted. Is there a compelling reason why it should *not* be there? --=20 Ryan Underwood, <ne...@ic...> |
From: Bruce P. <be...@wh...> - 2007-02-25 08:04:26
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ryan Underwood wrote: > I posted a feature request on the sourceforge page that cifsfs/smbfs > support be added to the kernel config for coLinux so that the shares of > the Windows host can be mounted. Is there a compelling reason why it > should *not* be there? > > > Uh...Samba? - -- ========= bep -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFF4ULgE1XcgMgrtyYRAu5vAJ9qmhpxngZjDxmibmgW4qUv3pjxugCg0955 FFVLmeACLK8IGFxrRldcsIA= =CEWS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
From: Ryan U. <ne...@ic...> - 2007-02-25 21:47:25
|
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 12:03:45AM -0800, Bruce Pinsky wrote: > Ryan Underwood wrote: > > I posted a feature request on the sourceforge page that cifsfs/smbfs > > support be added to the kernel config for coLinux so that the shares of > > the Windows host can be mounted. Is there a compelling reason why it > > should *not* be there? >=20 > Uh...Samba? smbclient does not allow you to mount the SMB shares of the Windows host. It is also incredibly tedious to use compared to a filesystem mount. --=20 Ryan Underwood, <ne...@ic...> |
From: Sam M. <pa...@gm...> - 2007-02-26 14:34:25
|
Samba provides the following: mount -t smb -o username=username,password=password //hostname/sambamount /path/to/your/mount/point Or in your fstab you can use the following: //hostname/sambamount /path/to/your/mount/point smb rw,user,defaults,noauto 0 0 then as 'username' you can run mount /path/to/your/mount/point and it will ask you for the password (alternatively you can override that with the following: //hostname/sambamount /path/to/your/mount/point smb rw,user,defaults,noauto,username=username 0 0 What is also possible (but "DONT DO THIS AT HOME KIDS") is putting the password in as well: //hostname/sambamount /path/to/your/mount/point smb rw,user,defaults,noauto,username=username,password=password 0 0 This is not a generic "I do not know how to use Linux" problem forum, if you are new to Linux get a distro on a physical machine or VMware/qemu and learn that way. When you have a problem with coLinux, please come back and ask it. Sam On 26/02/07, Ryan Underwood <ne...@ic...> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 12:03:45AM -0800, Bruce Pinsky wrote: > > Ryan Underwood wrote: > > > I posted a feature request on the sourceforge page that cifsfs/smbfs > > > support be added to the kernel config for coLinux so that the shares of > > > the Windows host can be mounted. Is there a compelling reason why it > > > should *not* be there? > > > > Uh...Samba? > > smbclient does not allow you to mount the SMB shares of the Windows > host. > > It is also incredibly tedious to use compared to a filesystem mount. > > -- > Ryan Underwood, <ne...@ic...> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFF4gPaIonHnh+67jkRAtLHAJ49gIAN7nGOgxVblXecRapltG5lgQCfbgF5 > 9YUgiaW7I7Aqg2KOkG11fqU= > =uBjy > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > coLinux-users mailing list > coL...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/colinux-users > > |
From: Ryan U. <ne...@ic...> - 2007-02-26 15:09:28
|
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 12:34:22AM +1000, Sam Moffatt wrote: >=20 > This is not a generic "I do not know how to use Linux" problem forum, > if you are new to Linux get a distro on a physical machine or > VMware/qemu and learn that way. When you have a problem with coLinux, > please come back and ask it. I found the problem, smbfs/cifsfs are built into the kernel statically instead of as modules, and smbmount was not in my path because my profile was not being read. (Attempting to setup a common cygwin/colinux home directory.) You can knock off the pretense, by the way - even elite experts such as yourself should agree that it is unconventional to build these modules statically, and I could not find a kernel config file anywhere in the coLinux distribution. --=20 Ryan Underwood, <ne...@ic...> |
From: Sam M. <pa...@gm...> - 2007-02-26 15:15:45
|
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. Again, apologies and best of luck :) Sam On 27/02/07, Ryan Underwood <ne...@ic...> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 12:34:22AM +1000, Sam Moffatt wrote: > > > > This is not a generic "I do not know how to use Linux" problem forum, > > if you are new to Linux get a distro on a physical machine or > > VMware/qemu and learn that way. When you have a problem with coLinux, > > please come back and ask it. > > I found the problem, smbfs/cifsfs are built into the kernel statically > instead of as modules, and smbmount was not in my path because my > profile was not being read. (Attempting to setup a common > cygwin/colinux home directory.) > > You can knock off the pretense, by the way - even elite experts such as > yourself should agree that it is unconventional to build these modules > statically, and I could not find a kernel config file anywhere in the > coLinux distribution. > > -- > Ryan Underwood, <ne...@ic...> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFF4vgiIonHnh+67jkRAmsLAJ9nyMsisEsk9RDV3v2XO4fqiH3GyQCglepA > tQACU4xnq4MjCYZtiNXPydE= > =6nVo > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > |
From: Ryan U. <nem...@ic...> - 2007-02-26 15:37:41
|
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 !=3D 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. >=20 > 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. --=20 Ryan Underwood, <ne...@ic...> |
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----- > > |
From: Henry N. <Henry.Ne@Arcor.de> - 2007-02-26 19:24:14
|
Hallo, have grepped the kernel configs. CIFS is not always enabled. Think, that is your mistake here ;-) coLinux 0.7.x with kernel 2.6.12: # CONFIG_CIFS is not set coLinux 0.8.x with kernel 2.6.13, 2.6.14, 2.6.15: # CONFIG_CIFS is not set coLinux 0.8.x with kernel 2.6.17: CONFIG_CIFS=m SMB FS is alway enabled as in kernel: CONFIG_SMB_FS=y If you need CIFS, should install a coLinux 0.8.0 with kernel 2.6.17 and build date *after* 2006-10-05T19:03:59. CIFS was enabled on this day. The last autobuild has CIFS enabled as module: http://www.henrynestler.com/colinux/autobuild/devel-20070225/ -- Henry Nestler |
From: Ryan U. <nem...@ic...> - 2007-02-26 20:13:19
|
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 02:00:27AM +1000, Sam Moffatt wrote: > Mmm, cifs should be in there as a module, I just checked the latest > autobuild and the module was there in it. Henry's mail summarizes the problem: ----------------------------------------------- coLinux 0.7.x with kernel 2.6.12: # CONFIG_CIFS is not set coLinux 0.8.x with kernel 2.6.13, 2.6.14, 2.6.15: # CONFIG_CIFS is not set coLinux 0.8.x with kernel 2.6.17: CONFIG_CIFS=3Dm ----------------------------------------------- I'm not sure why smbfs is compiled in while cifs is built as a module though. --=20 Ryan Underwood, <ne...@ic...> |
From: peter g. <plugwash@P10Link.net> - 2007-02-26 20:31:40
|
> I'm not sure why smbfs is compiled in while cifs is built as a module > though. smbfs is compiled in because before cofs and the module installing = initrd (which still seems more trouble than its worth judging from = reports from people whose crashes go away when they disable it) having = the ability to mount windows volumes over the network without modules = was deemed very usefull. Changing it now would mean stuff unexpectedly = starting to fail on upgrade for a marginal saving in memory. |
From: Henry N. <Henry.Ne@Arcor.de> - 2007-02-26 20:34:57
|
Ryan Underwood wrote: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 02:00:27AM +1000, Sam Moffatt wrote: >> Mmm, cifs should be in there as a module, I just checked the latest >> autobuild and the module was there in it. > > Henry's mail summarizes the problem: > ----------------------------------------------- > coLinux 0.7.x with kernel 2.6.12: > # CONFIG_CIFS is not set > > coLinux 0.8.x with kernel 2.6.13, 2.6.14, 2.6.15: > # CONFIG_CIFS is not set > > coLinux 0.8.x with kernel 2.6.17: > CONFIG_CIFS=m > ----------------------------------------------- > > I'm not sure why smbfs is compiled in while cifs is built as a module > though. smbfs was the first and only way to copy files from Windows host into coLinux Guest before cofs and initrd was usabel. After cofs is working, we use cofs to install all the other kernel modules, and nobody has changed the smbfs to module. I'm not shure, perhaps some peoples with installing a new distri use smbfs for copying files? Would no risk to break this way. Is it ok to change it as module? What other modules are missed? For sample some of NLS? We can change something all in the devel version. -- Henry Nestler |
From: George P B. <geo...@gm...> - 2007-03-10 21:00:11
|
Henry Nestler wrote: > Ryan Underwood wrote: > > After cofs is working, we use cofs to install all the other kernel > modules, and nobody has changed the smbfs to module. I'm not shure, > perhaps some peoples with installing a new distri use smbfs for copying > files? Would no risk to break this way. > > Is it ok to change it as module? > What other modules are missed? > For sample some of NLS? > We can change something all in the devel version. > > The main reason for keeping it built-in and not module to this point was because we didn't have what I'd call an reliable module delivery system (initrd had problems/issues), with it working better these days, I'd be more inclined to build-in less, and module more. However, we still need to balance size, as we don't want to make coLinux's install so big that it's difficult to pull down on lower-end connections. Additionally we don't want to enable every module for every possible user scenario. coLinux is still very much a work in progress, and the last thing we need to do is add complexities and possible crash-points to the kernel when we are already working on some tough crashes. Just my thoughts on the subject. |
From: Anders E. C \(KI/EAB\) <and...@er...> - 2007-02-27 08:48:14
|
> >=20 > > For future reference the kernel config files are available in the=20 > > source packages. >=20 Less /proc/config.gz is your friend. /A |
From: Ryan U. <nem...@ic...> - 2007-02-27 14:41:00
|
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 09:48:03AM +0100, Anders Eriksson C (KI/EAB) wrote: > > >=20 > > > For future reference the kernel config files are available in the=20 > > > source packages. > >=20 > Less /proc/config.gz is your friend. That works, not enabled in Debian kernels so I completely forgot about that option's existence. --=20 Ryan Underwood, <ne...@ic...> |
From: George P B. <geo...@gm...> - 2007-03-10 20:35:43
|
Sam Moffatt wrote: > For future reference the kernel config files are available in the > source packages. > > Also, 'typically' and as is the case with coLinux's kernel, as of 2.6 the kernel config is available with zcat /proc/config.gz | more |
From: peter g. <plugwash@P10Link.net> - 2007-02-25 11:31:56
|
> I posted a feature request on the sourceforge page that cifsfs/smbfs > support be added to the kernel config for coLinux so that the shares = of > the Windows host can be mounted. Is there a compelling reason why it > should *not* be there? last i checked smbfs was already there. |
From: Ryan U. <nem...@ic...> - 2007-02-26 14:38:05
|
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 11:30:13AM -0000, peter green wrote: >=20 > > I posted a feature request on the sourceforge page that cifsfs/smbfs > > support be added to the kernel config for coLinux so that the shares of > > the Windows host can be mounted. Is there a compelling reason why it > > should *not* be there? > last i checked smbfs was already there. I installed the latest user release (i.e., one with 2.6.12-co-0.7.1 kernel) and the smbfs/cifsfs modules do not exist, even while silly ones like XFS and minix are there. --=20 Ryan Underwood, <ne...@ic...> |