| 1 |
On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 12:37, John Davis wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hey all - |
| 3 |
> SMB shares are fun and useful, but our present livecds are unable to |
| 4 |
> mount them. We do in fact have smbfs support in the kernel, but like |
| 5 |
> nfs, smb needs its userland tool samba to complete the mount (iirc). So, |
| 6 |
> are there any major objections to adding samba onto our livecds? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Samba is not required to mount a SMB share, it just makes it easier and |
| 9 |
allows for more ability. I would venture to bet that the actual |
| 10 |
stumbling block is BusyBox's mount not being as full-featured as the |
| 11 |
real thing. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Also, you can mount NFS without nfs-utils... it is just SLOW as hell in |
| 14 |
mounting, but it *will* mount. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Personally, I think having the full-blown samba on the LiveCD will add |
| 17 |
*way* too much, unless we went and livecd/empty and livecd/rm'd |
| 18 |
everything that wasn't absolutely necessary for mounting. This does |
| 19 |
take us down a slippery slope, as we'll soon enough have users |
| 20 |
requesting us to keep the full package. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I think it requires more investigation into why, exactly, mounting a SMB |
| 23 |
share does not work with the current LiveCD's. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 27 |
Release Engineering QA Manager/Games Developer |
| 28 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |
Archives