From Newsgroup: muc.lists.freebsd.ports

On 6/20/26 19:24, Daniel Engberg wrote:

Hi,

Thanks for answering.

To my knowledge it's the last version that's "fully" or close to fully working and/or somewhat "validated" to work all others are considered
WIP .

I guess "validated" doesn't really have an "official" meaning here :) Personally I've been using only 4.22/4.23 for a long time with
satisfaction. Of course my use cases can't possibly cover the myriad of options, ways of using it, interactions with other softwares, etc...
I wonder, however, if these newer versions are "WIP" just because they
weren't tested by enough people (so eventual bugs were not reported and
not solved).

IMVVVVHO we should move forward and are very late at it.
Is there a list of what doesn't work in later versions?

Looking into bugzilla, I see #284603: that's against 4.20 however, which
is already obsolete. It's not clear if that's also bugging 4.22/4.23,
and, frankly, I doubt it works with 4.16 (I haven't tried it in a long
time, but I remember having had that problem in the past).

Then there's #281312, but it only lists a few ports that pinpoint
samba416, possibly just because that's the default. No indication of
whether that's an hard requirement or if someone tried them with a newer version.

Personally I would be happy with ksmbd

Didn't even know about this.
I guess we won't see it anytime soon.

but that's not really portable at least in its current form.

<rant>
Samba is also less and less portable...
</rant>
:)



bye
av.


--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-admin@muc.de
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: muc.lists.freebsd.ports

On 6/21/26 09:51, Daniel Engberg wrote:

At least I got the impression of later iterations that they were ~testing/beta quality with the "maybe this will work" approach.

Possibly; but they'll always be, if nobody tests them.
To be clear, I'm not blaming you, but I think moving default to a new
version would be a "gentle invite" to people to move on and report any failure. (And it would be better than keeping a "latest-8" version, that
was abandoned upstream some years ago).

We still carry a lot of patches in more recent versions, have there been
or are there any attempts of upstreaming?

I don't know.
I find it somehow hard to work with upstream, but that's probably me.

To clarify, ksmbd apart from being tied to the Linux kernel focuses on
file transferring (and performance but I think that would be secondary
in our case at least initially), which probably is what most use it for including myself without the other functionality.

I'd be happy to see ksmbd coming (although I don't think it will happen
any time soon), but that wouldn't fit all my needs alone (as I also use
Samba for AD DC and PAM authentication); so it wouldn't replace Samba.



bye
av.


--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-admin@muc.de
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2