On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 08:41:08PM +0300, atheik wrote:
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.
Samba adds and or changes functionality in smb.conf all
the time, without coordination with ksmbd. If you call
your config file smb.conf then we would have to coordinate
with you before any changes.
Over time, the meaning/use/names of parameters will drift
apart leading to possible conflicts.
Plus it leads to massive user confusion (am I running
smbd or ksmbd ? How do I tell ? etc.).
It is simple hygene to keep these names separate.
Please do so.
