Subject: Re: CRLF fun stuff again...
From: jeff (jeff@univrel.pr.uconn.edu)
Date: Fri Feb 09 2001 - 16:42:51 EST
Steve Freitas wrote:
> > It is worth noting that the Samba team have point blank refused to add
> > any form of 'translation' to Samba. It serves files exactly 'as is'.
> > They argue that EOL conventions are an Application problem and its not
> > the file servers job to try and guess what the user is up to and mess
> > around with the contents of the files.
>
> I think that is absolutely the right thing to do. I've had this CR/LF thing
> munge up whole ISOs for me, even when it's turned off. Sure, the option
> should be left in, but I don't want my fileserver to, by default, play
> guessing games with my linefeeds, which is what it seems to be doing, as
> least as far as my inexperienced eyes can tell (referencing my much earlier
> thread on this topic).
>
> When you've got to remember to add a line to AppleVolumes.system just to
> keep a file with a new suffix from being corrupted, that's just bad.
>
> Jeff, what do you think? :-)
Munging files is bad. If we want to move CRLF translation to a
compile-time option, that's a fine solution; those who want to compile
it in, can.
If an Apple (tm) AppleShareIP server doesn't do the translation, we
probably shouldn't do it by default, either. Reliability, then neat
features.
jeff
(We might want to nudge the Samba people gently about the
--with-netatalk support in Samba, and de-stub-ing it sometime.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Oct 14 2001 - 03:04:32 EDT