From nobody Sun Oct 31 17:15:25 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F80318283DD for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2021 17:15:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl) Received: from plan-b.pwste.edu.pl (plan-b.pwste.edu.pl [IPv6:2001:678:618::40]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "plan-b.pwste.edu.pl", Issuer "GEANT OV RSA CA 4" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Hj2qX3kpDz4XLQ for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2021 17:15:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl) Received: from [192.168.7.70] (dom.potoki.eu [62.133.140.50]) (authenticated bits=0) by plan-b.pwste.edu.pl (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 19VHFPS7073916 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Sun, 31 Oct 2021 18:15:25 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=plan-b.pwste.edu.pl; s=plan-b-mailer; t=1635700526; bh=CC+Pff5Ww88C+raFEHcjT5I4/JSYklrA3+46amccFn8=; h=Date:To:References:From:Subject:In-Reply-To; b=LUHSw3es3lWzkkyeo5sbkkFnrdJNyomiLjlayd42R7QLQbFjBHx2479o7FVngyLGK f+SEPxeReiLGiqB9zqNnM/Ywp8z/5ktb9PxmAqcnpbBDA1QCJH2ZuE4uKGV1/y8OZd gBDw89w2pjdqFYrxMtt3pYLXfvQEKAp/ajc2WRqCb8BONf5NobBRJLckyDrSl/6xbW ku3N+1IPf9CpVXQriP3nwbmn8Ie26C7AOUHVdLh6g2zSQnCsS7/8XJ7UNwKgPAl7S4 CeMMAPNRDaI2xUTpK/2CkQ27TALvfG/HNzUNVppDOuJArhOa8hC60pK/l3k8AXTW9J 4TuprN6WmiYqQ== X-Authentication-Warning: plan-b.pwste.edu.pl: Host dom.potoki.eu [62.133.140.50] claimed to be [192.168.7.70] Message-ID: Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2021 18:15:25 +0100 List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.1 Content-Language: en-US To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <8d25d2f4-24e2-5b19-5c81-2fe12dc937b7@quip.cz> <20211029074702.d69cba39a643f3f912f8ec81@dec.sakura.ne.jp> <940c9341-6938-05a1-d0b3-f20f07f9d3de@netfence.it> From: Marek Zarychta Subject: Re: Deprecating smbfs(5) and removing it before FreeBSD 14 In-Reply-To: <940c9341-6938-05a1-d0b3-f20f07f9d3de@netfence.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Hj2qX3kpDz4XLQ X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=plan-b.pwste.edu.pl header.s=plan-b-mailer header.b=LUHSw3es; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=plan-b.pwste.edu.pl; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl has no SPF policy when checking 2001:678:618::40) smtp.mailfrom=zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.69 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[plan-b.pwste.edu.pl:s=plan-b-mailer]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.89)[-0.892]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-current@freebsd.org]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(1.00)[0.999]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[plan-b.pwste.edu.pl:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[plan-b.pwste.edu.pl,none]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:206006, ipnet:2001:678:618::/48, country:PL]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N W dniu 29.10.2021 o 08:29, Andrea Venturoli pisze: > > 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. > +1 for removing smbfs(5) from the base and eventually moving it to the ports tree. I know some people are still using it with a bit of duct tape and baling twine to workaround  SMBv{2,3) incompatibility. With SMBv1 support, only our smbfs(5) became useless a few years ago. Unfortunately, there is no replacement in the ports tree. To mount SMB shares for Nextcloud the port net/pecl-smbclient can be used, but definitely deploying Nextcloud to mount only SMB shares is overkill. > OTOH having a port is not in any way worse as having a broken piece of > base. It sounds reasonable. Moreover, the story of net/wireguard-kmod has proven that moving some modules into ports, where the software development is done in a more flexible way, can be beneficial for both: the developers and the community. My opinion is only the opinion of the FreeBSD user, but I believe that sometimes the feedback from the userbase is important, especially that a few months I was told by one of the younger *NIX admins that our (FreeBSD) community is the best and he is willing to make a transition of some services to FreeBSD as soon as he gets permission from the management. With kind regards, -- Marek Zarychta