I think it should *definitely* be in the base system. :)
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity, are there any plans to commit the smbfs stuff? It is
> > really useful and I'd love to see it in the base system.
>
> Yes, I'm get much more responses about
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Brandon D. Valentine wrote:
> Out of curiosity, are there any plans to commit the smbfs stuff? It is
> really useful and I'd love to see it in the base system.
Yes, I'm get much more responses about smbfs compared to nwfs. So,
probably it should be in the base syste
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, kit wrote:
> On Freebsd 4.0-Release
> I am trying the smbfs-1.2.1 to mount a couple of NT shares so
> that I can read some files and copy them to a web server.
>
> The problem I am having is that the second mount kills the first.
Ok, this problem fixed along with
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, Boris Popov wrote:
> Thats strange, I have four smbfs mounts on my machine.
Out of curiosity, are there any plans to commit the smbfs stuff? It is
really useful and I'd love to see it in the base system.
Brandon D. Valentine
--
"You should believe in death, taxes, L
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000, kit wrote:
> The problem I am having is that the second mount kills the first.
>
>
> then on ls BP I get
> ls: BP: Broken pipe
Thats strange, I have four smbfs mounts on my machine.
> I thought that that might be because I had only 1 device entry in
> /dev/net s
