Re: RFC: future of the smbfs and smbfsx packages
Sarel Botha <sjb@dundee.lia.net> wrote:
> i'm not a debian developer but i like option 2 more
Well, your feedback also counts! It wouldn't be that much fun to
maintain stuff for Debian if there were no users :-)
I personally like option #2 better.
peloy.-
>
> On Mon, Jun 07, 1999 at 08:25:12PM +0000, Eloy A. Paris wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
> [...snip...]
>
>> Possible Solutions
>> ------------------
>>
>> Option 1: Create a new small package called smbfs-common that contains
>> the wrapper. Then rename the binaries to smbmount-2.0.x and
>> smbmount-2.2.x and let the wrapper choose which one to call depending
>> on the kernel version that is running. Use alternatives to handle the
>> man pages.
>>
>> Option 2: Put the wrapper script inside package smbfsx (the wrapper
>> isn't needed for the smbfs package because the wrapper emulates the
>> good-old syntax of the old smbmount). Then have smbfs conflict with
>> smbfsx (they can't be installed at the same time).
>>
>
> [...snip...]
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sarel Botha | Computer & | +27 341 81341
> (sjb@dundee.lia.net) | Accounting | BOX 2065, Dundee
> | Services | 3000, South Africa
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "The End is near." -- http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/7771/666.htm
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Reply to: