Re: samba 2.0.7 vs. 2.0.5

2000-12-07 Thread Robert Waldner
On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 15:40:19 -0200, Rogerio Brito writes: >On Dec 06 2000, Robert Waldner wrote: >> I still use a 2.0.38-kernel (that box is only apt-get upgrade´d, not - >> dist-upgraded, to potato) because of some legacy-software, so for me >> it´s essential that kernel-version-dependencies ar

Re: samba 2.0.7 vs. 2.0.5

2000-12-06 Thread Rogerio Brito
On Dec 06 2000, Robert Waldner wrote: > I still use a 2.0.38-kernel (that box is only apt-get upgrade´d, not - > dist-upgraded, to potato) because of some legacy-software, so for me > it´s essential that kernel-version-dependencies are correct ;-) Oh, I see. But I think that I read some

Re: samba 2.0.7 vs. 2.0.5

2000-12-06 Thread Robert Waldner
On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 21:20:00 -0200, Rogerio Brito writes: >On Dec 05 2000, Robert Waldner wrote: >> Shouldn´t samba 2.0.7 depend on a kernel >= 2.2 then? This seems >> like a bug to me (I ran into the same problem but have put samba on >> hold since then). > > Well, that would be a problem fo

Re: samba 2.0.7 vs. 2.0.5

2000-12-05 Thread sc
On 12/4/00 4:55 PM, Phil Brutsche ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: If 2.0.5 works I would say stick with it. You only really need 2.0.7 if you have any Win2k machines that need to connect to the samba server. Ah. Actually, we're starting work with a few consultant types who come in with Win2K lapt

Re: samba 2.0.7 vs. 2.0.5

2000-12-05 Thread Rogerio Brito
On Dec 05 2000, Robert Waldner wrote: > Shouldn´t samba 2.0.7 depend on a kernel >= 2.2 then? This seems > like a bug to me (I ran into the same problem but have put samba on > hold since then). Well, that would be a problem for people that don't use a Debian packaged kernel (or ke

Re: samba 2.0.7 vs. 2.0.5

2000-12-05 Thread Phil Brutsche
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said... > Shouldn?t samba 2.0.7 depend on a kernel >= 2.2 then? This seems like a > bug to me (I ran into the same problem but have put samba on hold since > then). IMO that would break when you don'

Re: samba 2.0.7 vs. 2.0.5

2000-12-05 Thread Robert Waldner
On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 16:55:26 CST, Phil Brutsche writes: >A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said... > >> I thought I saw some sort of posting here or elsewhere that mentioned >> that 2.0.7 works with kernels 2.2.x but not 2.0.x (mine) ? > >If you're trying to use the distributed sam

Re: samba 2.0.7 vs. 2.0.5

2000-12-04 Thread Phil Brutsche
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far way, someone said... > I thought I saw some sort of posting here or elsewhere that mentioned > that 2.0.7 works with kernels 2.2.x but not 2.0.x (mine) ? If you're trying to use the distributed samba 2.0.7 on a 2