Subject: Re: mount_smbfs problems
To: Alex Pelts <email@example.com>
From: Justin Newcomer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/09/2005 18:38:34
I do and did run the samba server on the qube, lots of people do, its
running the smb client that became a problem.
I applied the changes to majors.cobalt
device-major nsmb char 98 nsmb
and since I havent actually be able to build the -current userland
without it failing on some missing file error (even though i used cvs,
nother time, nother thread)
so i updated my MAKEDEV
with the suggestion from Hubert
mkdev nsmb$unit c 98 $unit 644
i had the create the devices manually "./MAKEDEV nsmb"
but then everything worked
thank you all
the userland i have right now is from the 2.01 restore CD, but the
kernel has been recompiled several times to test and add / disable
one thing, the GENERIC kernel doesnt even have the "pseudo-device" or
the "file-system" options included (even with the #) so i had to copy
them from the i386 kernel
no offense, i love my qube, but seeing as how its probably not running
high end server stuff, and most people are using them for file storage
thank you for all your help
On 5/9/05, Alex Pelts <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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
> the qube.
> 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 =
> > IIRC they were chosen to help certain compat setups where you use a /de=
> > dir from another OS in one way or the other. A special layered filesyst=
> > (similar to UMAPFS) that maps device nodes according to a config file
> > could be used to assist this setups instead and allow globaly unique de=
> > major numbers.
> > But then, changing those numbers now, after lots of machines are instal=
> > would be a major PITA.
> > Martin