On Thu, 1 Sep 2022 09:14:31 -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: >On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 09:06:07AM -0400, Tom Talpey wrote: >> >>Ok, two things. What I found strange is the "man smb.conf.5ksmbd", and >>as you say that should be man 5k smb.conf. Sounds ok to me. >> >>But the second thing I'm concerned about is the reuse of the smb.conf >>filename. It's perfectly possible to install both Samba and ksmbd on >>a system, they can be configured to use different ports, listen on >>different interfaces, or any number of other deployment approaches. >> >>And, Samba provides MUCH more than an SMB server, and configures many >>other services in smb.conf. So I feel ksmbd should avoid such filename >>conflicts. To me, calling it "ksmbd.conf" is much more logical. > >+1 from me. Having 2 conflicting file contents both wanting >to be called smb.conf is a disaster waiting to happen. ksmbd-tools clearly has a goal of being compatible with smb.conf(5) of Samba when it comes to the common subset of functionality they share. ksmbd-tools has 7 global parameters that Samba does not have, but other than, share parameters and global parameters of ksmbd-tools are subset of those in Samba. Samba and ksmbd-tools do not have any conflicting file locations. The smb.conf(5ksmbd) man page of ksmbd-tools does not collide with and never overshadows smb.conf(5) of Samba. Please, help me understand what sort of disaster this could lead to. > >Please use ksmbd.conf. Atte Heikkilä
