On 10/29/21 00:47, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:
But possibly we need to delete current smbfs code from base and switch
to ports (sysutils/*?) if it require some code having incompatible
license for base.
I normally favour ports over things in base.
In this case, however, as I said before, I needed it
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 17:37:33 +0200
Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
> On 28/10/2021 16:44, Ed Maste wrote:
> > The smbfs(5) filesystem supports only the obsolete SMBv1 protocol, and
> > I propose removing it for FreeBSD 14. I know the CHERI folks have been
> > using it but they plan to m
kib@ recently committed my implementations of cospi[fl],
sinpi[fl], and tanpi[fl]. These functions have been
extensively tested for float, double, and long double
where long double is the Intel 80-bit long double (e.g.,
msun/ld80/s_sinpil.c). The 128-bit versions of these
routines have not been t
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 09:33:18PM +0200, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> On 28/10/2021 18:25, Ed Maste wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 11:05, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> >>
> >> Please do not remove what is not broken.
> >
> > That is exactly the problem though: it was broken. It was fixed only
> > bec
On 28/10/2021 18:25, Ed Maste wrote:
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 11:05, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
Please do not remove what is not broken.
That is exactly the problem though: it was broken. It was fixed only
because the CHERI folks found that it wasn't working and fixed it, and
they are not going to
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 6:39 PM Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote:
> I am working for one company where smbfs is heavily used to connect
> Windows / MacOS / Linux / FreeBSD (12.2) machines and we are really sad
> that FreeBSD's mount_smbfs does not support SMBv2 / SMBv3 protocols (so
> we
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 11:26, Shawn Webb wrote:
>
> It seems that smbfs might be used with some level of frequency in
> virtualized environments. I wonder if providing a 9pfs client would be
> a good step in helping deprecate smbfs.
Indeed, that addresses one of the primary reasons it is still be
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 11:05, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>
> Please do not remove what is not broken.
That is exactly the problem though: it was broken. It was fixed only
because the CHERI folks found that it wasn't working and fixed it, and
they are not going to be using it much longer. If nobody el
On 28/10/2021 16:44, Ed Maste wrote:
The smbfs(5) filesystem supports only the obsolete SMBv1 protocol, and
I propose removing it for FreeBSD 14. I know the CHERI folks have been
using it but they plan to migrate away from it. It was broken for
months before they fixed it, so I suspect nobody is
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:44:56AM -0400, Ed Maste wrote:
> The smbfs(5) filesystem supports only the obsolete SMBv1 protocol, and
> I propose removing it for FreeBSD 14. I know the CHERI folks have been
> using it but they plan to migrate away from it. It was broken for
> months before they fixed
The smbfs(5) filesystem supports only the obsolete SMBv1 protocol, and
I propose removing it for FreeBSD 14. I know the CHERI folks have been
using it but they plan to migrate away from it. It was broken for
months before they fixed it, so I suspect nobody is using it on
contemporary releases.
I h
11 matches
Mail list logo
