samba - Mar 2008 - I changed smb.conf, but nothing seems to happen!

Hello, *

After some good advice from the list, I now have my workgroup visible. Next 
problem.

I click on it from my win98 station (yes, it is old; I even have a w95 
workstation somewhere :-) ) and I get "can't find share name".

Now I look in the samba logs, and I see that it is looking 
for /usr/local/samba/netlogon, which doesn't exist. Oops, error!

The netlogon happens to be in /etc/samba/netlogon, so I change the path in 
smb.conf and restart Samba.

I try again, but now my Win98 station keeps trying to 
access /usr/local/samba/netlogon. How come?

I suppose that the easiest way out is to put a link to the right location 
in /usr/local, but somehow that doesn't feel right.


-- 
J.J. Gerritse
M?hlenstra?e 11
D-47546 Kalkar-Wissel
Duitsland
+49-2824-971487

I found it already-- there was a second ocurrence of /usr/loca/... under 
[netlogon]. Now why are there two occurrences?

-- 
J.J. Gerritse
M?hlenstra?e 11
D-47546 Kalkar-Wissel
Duitsland
+49-2824-971487

joop gerritse wrote:
> Hello, *
>
> After some good advice from the list, I now have my workgroup visible. Next
> problem.
>
> I click on it from my win98 station (yes, it is old; I even have a w95 
> workstation somewhere :-) ) and I get "can't find share
name".
>
> Now I look in the samba logs, and I see that it is looking 
> for /usr/local/samba/netlogon, which doesn't exist. Oops, error!
>
> The netlogon happens to be in /etc/samba/netlogon, so I change the path in 
> smb.conf and restart Samba.
>
> I try again, but now my Win98 station keeps trying to 
> access /usr/local/samba/netlogon. How come?
>
> I suppose that the easiest way out is to put a link to the right location 
> in /usr/local, but somehow that doesn't feel right.
>
>
>   
Joop,

Are you only running one version of samba?  I'm assuming you compiled 
your own if it's in the /usr/local hierarchy.  Perhaps your distro 
shipped with a version that you forgot to take out?