Re: CFD (Call for discussion): packaging streamlining for Samba 3.0

On Tue, 27 May 2003, Buchan Milne wrote:

> How about samba-server requiring samba-client (so that people can still
> install samba-client standalone for use with linnieghborhood, kio_smb,
> GNOME-VFS smb support, smbmount etc ...). I see Simo Sorce has the same
> suggestion. I will try it on cooker and see if anyone complains ...
>
> BTW, after seeing way too many users lost with an empty smb.conf (asking
> about features that are an uncomment away in our default smb.conf file),
> I really am considering making samba-swat an optional (ie not in the
> distro) in favour of something like ksambaplugin. SWAT causes way too
> many bad configurations, which require lots of assistance to fix,
> whereas a quick look in /etc/samba/smb.conf with a text editor of choice
> would usually get the user to a better solution than the one they were
> attempting with SWAT.

Throwing away SWAT is a bad option. SWAT is a source of access to
documentation as well as a means of configuring the system. You will have
a big job on your hands to convince an MS Windows network admin who is not
versed in Unix to use a text editor like vi.

A better solution is to fix the defects in SWAT. Have you looked at the
wizard feature in SWAT?

What can we do to make SWAT a better tool?

The use of tools that do not know the config parameters of the current
version of Samba will bite your hand also.

I am not trying to convince you to use SWAT, I jsut want to get a sane
resolution on the matter. It seems that your solution is to throw the baby
out with the bath water just because it soils it's diaper once in a while.
:)

- John T.
-- 
John H Terpstra
Email: [email protected]