On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:51:28PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > I think that *all these* are incorrect:
> - there is no reason for mount.cifs to use settings in > smb.conf. Nothing is advertised as such in its documentation and, even > if it is provided along with samba, this is essentially a userland > utility to mount filesystem and use the kernel's cifs module Well, I disagree with this. There's no reason to /expect/ mount.cifs to use settings in smb.conf, but the reason to /want/ mount.cifs to use them is for an improved user experience, providing consistency between the userspace tools and the kernel mount interface. That said, I doubt this will ever be implemented in practice (I guess mount.cifs has no support for nmb at all today, right?), so I don't object to closing the bug. > - why should it query a WINS server on "localhost". Nothing tells that > there should be one elsewhere and there should be one at all Right, that doesn't make much sense to me. > - the name resolution for mount.cifs is the same than the kernel's one Mmm, I don't think that's true. I don't think the kernel does any name resolution at all, I believe mount.cifs is doing name resolution via libc before passing the request to the kernel. > - finally, the error message for a non existing server is: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/tmp/samba-test> mount -t cifs \\\\foo\\bar /mnt > mount error: could not find target server. TCP name foo/bar not found > No ip address specified and hostname not found > ...which I find pretty informative. Well, I think the submitter has a point regarding the term "TCP name". I don't know what a TCP name is, do you? Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
