Re: Deprecating smbfs(5) and removing it before FreeBSD 14

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