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

[Luis Pedro Coelho]

Le Mercredi 19 Mars 2003 21:39, Alexander Neundorf a écrit :
> On Wednesday 19 March 2003 21:33, Luis Pedro Coelho wrote:
> ...
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, conceptionally a smb-ioslave which uses a library which is
> specifically designed for such uses is better.
> But somebody has to work on it.

The other slave seems unmaintained: The last change to the other slave was 
nine months ago according to CVS. Which would be ok if there weren't any bugs 
on it, but that does not seem to be the case.

I rather have a conceptually worse ioslave than a broken and unmaintained one.

On unix, having several processes will not cost you much, plus you normally 
get much more foward and backward compatibility working through clients than 
working with libraries.

> > Searching in lists.kde.org didn't bring up any discussions on this, but I
> > could have missed something.
>
> There were discussions, leading to "compile the libsmbclient.so one if this
> lib is found, otherwise the other one".

Should this decision be revisited?

I hesite to post this as I do not wish to start a huge discussion and 
removing/adding/replacing components is often polemic.
However, given that the current situations brings some problems, I think it 
the question could be considered again, but please don't escalate the 
discussion.

Regards,
-- 
Luis Pedro Coelho

"Technology does not always equal progress."
Douglas Coupland