I'm curious if anyone has an idea why upgrading the kernel and smb stuff
would affect this particular error, it is the same "mount" binary that
has been there for a long time, it is the real GNU-mount from util-linux
2.8, too, so it should be fine.  I suspect that there is some misdirection
in the error message- maybe it means it thinks it wants a "mount" linked
with glibc instead of libc5?  There is no "mount" version "6"- "mount"
is part of utils-linux, which is still only up to something like 2.9o, I
think...  If anyone wants to look at the source code for smbfs or whatever...

Given that 'smbmount' works when used standalone, I'll just consider this
to be solved with a FAQ update...

-Tom

On Fri, 10 May 2002, Tom Oehser wrote:

> Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 07:30:51 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Tom Oehser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Stephane Boireau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [tomsrtbt] Smbmount et Tomsrtbt2.0.103...
>
>
> Ah.  I see the problem.
>
> The "mount -t smbfs" wrapper doesn't work, but "smbmount" directly does work.
>
> When I do "mount -t smbfs //host /mountpoint -o options", it fails with the
> 'need mount version 6' message.  When I do 'smbmount //host /mountpoint -o
> options', I get NLS codepage warnings, but it works.
>
> Try with smbmount directly.
>
> -Tom
>
> On Fri, 10 May 2002, Stephane Boireau wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 11:38:05 +0200
> > From: Stephane Boireau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [tomsrtbt] Smbmount et Tomsrtbt2.0.103...
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I do the whole test again, trying to access a shared directory on a
> > linux/samba PDC box and to another share on a winMe box without password for
> > the second.
> >
> > I did the links as I told in my last mail.
> >
> > I wait a few minutes between two smbmount test.
> > ...
> > Nothing...
> >
> > I tried another thing:
> > "smbmount -h" tells that we can do
> > "mount -t smbfs -o username=myname,password=mypassword //pc16/public /mnt/smb4"
> > But what I get is:
> >         mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on //pc16/public,
> >                or too many mounted file systems
> >         SMBFS: need mount version 6
> > Is there something with the "mount" version?
> >
> > After that, to be sure I'm not fool, I try again with Tomsrtbt1.7... and
> > everything is all right.
> >
> > It doesn't solve the problem, but it's fine to success smbmounting shares...
> >
> > Thank you for the help you give, and the great job you do.
> >
> > Bye.
> > *********************************************
> >   St�phane Boireau, personne ressource TICE
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] au coll�ge Le Hameau,
> > 1 rue Albert Schweitzer, BP 851, 27308 BERNAY
> > *********************************************
> >
>

Reply via email to