On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Yar Tikhiy wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 at 11:04:54AM +0000, Gavin Atkinson wrote:
Is there a reason this change was made? And is there a reason why
The change wasn't against NETSMBCRYPTO, it just corrected the way
kernel modules get their options.
NETSMBCRYPTO is not in GENERIC? To me, it seems that breaking smbfs
between releases within 6.x violates POLA... I suspect a large number of
people (myself included) have always used smbfs for passworded shares
and it's "just worked".
This issue is under investigation by the Release Engineers and yours
truly. I'm sorry my change to the kernel module framework caused
the confusion, but so the whole issue has got attention at last.
Of course, it must be fixed before 6.1-R. In the meanwhile, I'd
like to hear about any reservations on making NETSMBCRYPTO the
default case for netsmb/smbfs. Thanks!
I don't see any problem with making it the default case, since before the
framework cleanup, it effectively was default.
Gavin
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
