Subject: Re: mount_smbfs problems
To: Martin Husemann <email@example.com>
From: Alex Pelts <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/09/2005 15:24:01
I agree with you on the point of changing large install base. I was just
thinking that having all the numbers different on all the different
ports does not help the understanding.
I guess there is a little point to have all the numbers change but it
would be nice if the new numbers would match the existing ones. This way
new user would not spend much time trying to figure out what number to
assign. The document describing details would be nice as well (if there
isn't one already).
One thing I am kind of surprised about is that no one run in to this
problem before. I can't believe that no one tried to run samba server on
Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 02:55:30PM -0700, Alex Pelts wrote:
>>I did not understand what you mean exactly, could you elaborate please?
> My main point was:
> since noone cares for the actual numbers, why do you want to reconcile them?
> IIRC they were chosen to help certain compat setups where you use a /dev
> dir from another OS in one way or the other. A special layered filesystem
> (similar to UMAPFS) that maps device nodes according to a config file
> could be used to assist this setups instead and allow globaly unique device
> major numbers.
> But then, changing those numbers now, after lots of machines are installed,
> would be a major PITA.