Why keep the old kio/smb? (was: Re: new component for bugs.kde.org)

[Luis Pedro Coelho]

Le Mercredi 19 Mars 2003 21:09, Alexander Neundorf a écrit :
> since we have two smb-ioslaves, it would be good to have two bug components
> for them.
> We have now kio/smb, either a new kio/smbro or a new kio/smb-libsmb .
>
> Until then, I will mark the bugs reported for the libsmbclient smb-ioslave
> as WONTFIX, since I won't fix them, and it seems nobody else does.
>
> BTW, how do I reassign a bug to another product/component ?

Can anyone explain the reason for keeping two iolsaves, especially because the 
smb one seems to be unmaintained for a year and more than one unresolved bug.

You said in http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=102032871822937&w=2 that 
>>>
From my experience the libsmbclient ioslave still has more problems and is 
slower (yes, indeed, I did not expect this).
<<<

Given that that slave did not change since your above quoted message, and 
yours seems to have pretty recent patches, I don't see the point in keeping 
the other around.

I use neither of the slaves so I am unaware of the issues. Still, I think it 
is a bit idiotic to have two, from the users view, indistiguishable 
components and forcing Alex to ask:
>>>
Does your kio_smb.so link to libsmbclient.so ? (ldd kio_smb.so) 
<<<

Searching in lists.kde.org didn't bring up any discussions on this, but I 
could have missed something.

Regards,
-- 
Luis Pedro Coelho

http://blogs.salon.com/0001523