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

[Stephan Kulow]

On Thursday 20 March 2003 17:59, Stefan Gehn wrote:
> Moin,
> 
> On Mittwoch März 19 2003 22:13, Luis Pedro Coelho wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Well, I have some patches to it locally but I cannot commit as it'll break 
> other things (which I don't use myself). If I'm right I still use the libsmb 
> ioslave and it works pretty well for me, I'd have to try out both manually to 
> find out which one suits me better :)
> 
> > I rather have a conceptually worse ioslave than a broken and unmaintained
> > one.
> 
> It's not really broken for me.
Definitely. While smbro fails miserably when smbclient fails miserably when smbclient
got something wrong, the real smb slave has at least a chance to get it halfway working.
And the samba people are _very_ responsive to bug reports against libsmbclient.

After you left your bug reports alone for a couple of months, now waking up and
claiming the "other" smb slave is unmaintained, is a pretty funny thing. Really, I like it!

Greetings, Stephan