On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 18:20 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > Quoting Peter Eisentraut ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > Am Donnerstag, 26. Januar 2006 17:50 schrieb Christian Perrier: > > > Should it then be tagged "upstream wontfix" and voilà? > > > > Are the upstream developers aware of the issue? > > Maybe or maybe not...but my understanding is that all code related to > smbfs is not actively maintained. Am I wrong in some way?
Being in the Samba tree, it is more maintained than the in-kernel portions. But I agree with 'upstream, wontfix', because I am very hesitant to change the very long-term established behaviour of this setuid binary. Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Student Network Administrator, Hawker College http://hawkerc.net
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
