Re: RFC: future of the smbfs and smbfsx packages

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: RFC: future of the smbfs and smbfsx packages
From: Edward Betts <edward@debian.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 23:28:52 +0100
Message-id: <19990609232852.A15024@portaloo.>
Mail-followup-to: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 19990608114958.D25390@jab.home>; from Sarel Botha on Tue, Jun 08, 1999 at 11:49:58AM +0200
References: <[🔎] 7jh9r8$jqj$1@zeus.ven.ra.rockwell.com> <[🔎] 19990608114958.D25390@jab.home>

On debian-devel, Sarel Botha <sjb@dundee.lia.net> wrote:
> i'm not a debian developer but i like option 2 more

What if I flip between 2.0.x and 2.2.x? smb is always working with option 1,
broken halve the time with option 2.
-- 
I consume, therefore I am

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: RFC: future of the smbfs and smbfsx packages
  - From: Sarel Botha <sjb@dundee.lia.net>

References:
- RFC: future of the smbfs and smbfsx packages
  - From: "Eloy A. Paris" <eparis@ven.ra.rockwell.com>
- Re: RFC: future of the smbfs and smbfsx packages
  - From: Sarel Botha <sjb@dundee.lia.net>

Prev by Date: upload question
Next by Date: Re: upload question
Previous by thread: Re: RFC: future of the smbfs and smbfsx packages
Next by thread: Re: RFC: future of the smbfs and smbfsx packages
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread