Menu
▾
▴
webadmin-devel
|
From: Martin M. <mm...@me...> - 2004-03-28 15:13:46
|
Howdy, Would it be possible to get back SMBFS-Support into Webmin's "Local Filesystem"-Module? Seems to be that CIFS is not the same as SMBFS. Is there any reason why stopping to support something that has worked properly before? cu Martin -- Official Webmin/Usermin Translation Co-Ordinator 2003/2004 http://www.webmin.com/ Primary http://webmin.mamemu.de/ Mirror |
|
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2004-03-29 11:34:57
|
Thanks for pointing that out - this is a bug in 1.139, that will be fixed before the 1.140 release. How different are SMBFS and CIFS anyway? I have been assuming up to now that they are pretty much just different names for the same thing .. - Jamie On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 01:13, Martin Mewes wrote: > Howdy, > > Would it be possible to get back SMBFS-Support into Webmin's "Local > Filesystem"-Module? Seems to be that CIFS is not the same as SMBFS. > > Is there any reason why stopping to support something that has worked > properly before? > > cu > > Martin |
|
From: Martin M. <mm...@me...> - 2004-03-29 11:56:24
|
Hi Jamie, Jamie Cameron <jca...@we...> wrote: >Thanks for pointing that out - this is a bug in 1.139, that will be >fixed before the 1.140 release. k3wl ;-) >How different are SMBFS and CIFS anyway? I have been assuming up to now >that they are pretty much just different names for the same thing .. That's a good question, because I simply do not know anything about CIFS and when I installed Webmin 1.139 I heard about CIFS for the first time :-) They are not 100% compatible, because when I tried to mount an SMBFS with the CIFS-part I received an error I cannot recall from scratch. bis dahin - kind regards Martin Mewes --=20 http://webmin.mamemu.de/ Official Webmin/Usermin Translation Co-Ordinator 2003/2004 Proud Forte Agent 2.0 Beta Tester |
|
From: Peter A. <pe...@ce...> - 2004-03-29 13:15:42
|
> How different are SMBFS and CIFS anyway? I have been assuming up to now > that they are pretty much just different names for the same thing .. There's an overview at http://us1.samba.org/samba/Linux_CIFS_client.html . -- Peter Åstrand Chief Developer Cendio www.thinlinc.com Teknikringen 3 www.cendio.se 583 30 Linköping Phone: +46-13-21 46 00 |
|
From: Martin M. <mm...@me...> - 2004-03-29 18:24:45
|
Hi Jamie, Am Montag, 29. M=E4rz 2004 13:34 schrieb Jamie Cameron: > Thanks for pointing that out - this is a bug in 1.139, that will be > fixed before the 1.140 release. > > How different are SMBFS and CIFS anyway? I have been assuming up to > now that they are pretty much just different names for the same > thing .. In addition: I setup a fresh SuSE 9.0 and installed the latest=20 devel-rpm packages. Well in the RPM there is no CIFS, but SMBFS=20 instead. Bug or Feature ;-) ? cu MM =2D-=20 Proud editor within wikipedia.org http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Macmewes Currently working on: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundeswehr |
|
From: Jamie C. <jca...@we...> - 2004-03-29 22:56:42
|
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 04:24, Martin Mewes wrote: > Hi Jamie, > > Am Montag, 29. März 2004 13:34 schrieb Jamie Cameron: > > > Thanks for pointing that out - this is a bug in 1.139, that will be > > fixed before the 1.140 release. > > > > How different are SMBFS and CIFS anyway? I have been assuming up to > > now that they are pretty much just different names for the same > > thing .. > > In addition: I setup a fresh SuSE 9.0 and installed the latest > devel-rpm packages. Well in the RPM there is no CIFS, but SMBFS > instead. > > Bug or Feature ;-) ? The current 1.139 version of webmin looks for the mount.cifs command, and if found assumes that CIFS is being used instead of SMBFS. Since this is not the correct thing to do, version 1.140 will allow the use of both. Oddly, the latest Fedora seems to have replaced smbfs with cifs, which is why I initially made that change. - Jamie |
|
From: Bart K. <ba...@cl...> - 2004-03-30 00:34:16
|
Jamie Cameron wrote: >On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 04:24, Martin Mewes wrote: > > >>Hi Jamie, >> >>Am Montag, 29. März 2004 13:34 schrieb Jamie Cameron: >> >> >> >>>Thanks for pointing that out - this is a bug in 1.139, that will be >>>fixed before the 1.140 release. >>> >>>How different are SMBFS and CIFS anyway? I have been assuming up to >>>now that they are pretty much just different names for the same >>>thing .. >>> >>> >>In addition: I setup a fresh SuSE 9.0 and installed the latest >>devel-rpm packages. Well in the RPM there is no CIFS, but SMBFS >>instead. >> >>Bug or Feature ;-) ? >> >> > >The current 1.139 version of webmin looks for the mount.cifs command, >and if found assumes that CIFS is being used instead of SMBFS. Since >this is not the correct thing to do, version 1.140 will allow the use of >both. > >Oddly, the latest Fedora seems to have replaced smbfs with cifs, which >is why I initially made that change. > > - Jamie > > And thank you for it very much :) aparently development of smbmnt is dead unlike the devel of cifs which is very much active. > >------------------------------------------------------- >This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials >Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of >GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system >administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click >- >Forwarded by the Webmin development list at web...@we... >To remove yourself from this list, go to >http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webadmin-devel > > > > > -- ____________________________________________________ Bart Kalita MCP Registered Linux user #347493 Fedora Core 2 www.bart-domain.com www.astradine.no-ip.org |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X