On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 09:22:18AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > +# Setup usershare options to enable non-root user to share folders > > > +# with the net usershare command. > > > + > > > +# The path were the share definition will be stored. Only members of the > > > group > > > +# owning the path will be able to use the net usershare command. > > > + usershare path = /var/lib/samba/usershares
> > Could this be better addressed by fixing the built-in default in the binary > > instead of requiring an override in smb.conf? (The current default seems to > > be /var/run/samba/usershares, which is simply wrong.) > I agree here. We should propose a patch to upstream as I don't see any > reason to have a default to /var/run/samba/usershares <ahem> better make it part of the fhs patch submission then, since that's ultimately where this comes from. :) > > > +# Maximum number of usershare. 0 (default) means that usershare is > > > disabled. > > > + usershare max shares = 100 > > Why "100" as the max shares limit? (It seems that any limit we'd choose is > > arbitrary and an override of the upstream value, so I'm not particularly > > bothered by the number, just wondering if there's a rationale for this > > cutoff.) > I think that 0 being the default AND a way to disable usershares, we > need to setup a limit if we want to activate the feature. Yes, clearly so. > Indeed, upstream's default is a bit strange here. I would more expect > one setting to activate usershares and another one to specify the > maximum number (with 0 meaning no limit). Something like: > usershare = yes > usershare max shares = <integer> I'm not sure that we would want the share count to be unlimited by default either, though? > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 10:50:01PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > A first concern comes with the dedicated group name. Should we use > > > "smbshare" and then still advertise that obsolete acronym (SMB) which > > > is however known by nearly everybody? > > How about "sambashare" or "samba-share"? It does, after all, have little to > > do with the smb protocol, but everything to do with the samba package. > I have a small preference for "sambashare" while "cifsshare" seems > more precise to me....but more cryptic for people who don't know what > CIFS is. cifsshare would also be ok with me. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
