I installed samba on a PC running SuSE 10.2, using the version from the SuSE 10.2 repository (3.0.23). All very nice, except smbmount is missing. As I understand it, this would seem to be because the version offered had not been compiled with the --with-smbmount option. Is my interpretation correct? And if so, how can I fix things? Do I have to download the source and do my own compilation (urrgh)? Or is there a version on a repository somewhere compiled with the --with-smbmount option? I didn't have this problem with either SuSE 10.0 or 10.1, -- All the best, John
On 2007/05/03 17:32 (GMT+0100) John G Walker apparently typed:> I installed samba on a PC running SuSE 10.2, using the version from the > SuSE 10.2 repository (3.0.23). All very nice, except smbmount is > missing.> As I understand it, this would seem to be because the version offered > had not been compiled with the --with-smbmount option.> Is my interpretation correct? And if so, how can I fix things? Do I > have to download the source and do my own compilation (urrgh)? Or is > there a version on a repository somewhere compiled with the > --with-smbmount option?> I didn't have this problem with either SuSE 10.0 or 10.1,SUSE wants you to use cifs instead of smbfs, but if you can't get cifs to work right, you can recompile the kernel to enable smbfs. I don't remember exactly the details of getting smbmount back, so I asked on freenode and got the following: 13:22 <a-865> kukks: what did we do to get smbmount back in SUSE 10.2? 14:41 <kukks> a-865: You have to download the samba-client - possibly Suse even dropped stuff from that. you need: smbmount smbmt smbumount 14:42 I always use the samba3 svn source and build all stuff myself 14:44 <kukks> Then 2 symlinks must be set in /sbin to allow the basic mount cmd to work: mount.smbfs -> /usr/bin/smbmount umount.smbfs -> /usr/bin/smbumount -- "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
On Mon, 07 May 2007 20:41:47 +0100 Tom Crummey <tom@ee.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:> Why does the W98 box have to be the server? Can't you make the disk > from the Linux system available as a share, mount it on the W98 box > and move the files from the W98 local drive to the share?Because there isn't a "the" share. There's a multiplicity of accounts, which W98 can't handle, without doing some horrendously complicated mapping. And the W98 machine isn't "he" server. It's "a" server. It works as a server for certain purposes, mainly to do with simplifying access to data. It's simplicity I'm after, -- All the best, John
On Mon, 07 May 2007 20:41:47 +0100 Tom Crummey <tom@ee.ucl.ac.uk> wrote:> Why does the W98 box have to be the server? Can't you make the disk > from the Linux system available as a share, mount it on the W98 box > and move the files from the W98 local drive to the share?Because there isn't a "the" share. There's a multiplicity of accounts, which W98 can't handle, without doing some horrendously complicated mapping. And the W98 machine isn't "he" server. It's "a" server. It works as a server for certain purposes, mainly to do with simplifying access to data. It's simplicity I'm after, -- All the best, John