> On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 05:41:03PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 22:16:13 +0100
> > Guenter Kukkukk <linux@kukkukk.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Am Montag, 28. Januar 2008 schrieb Adrian Bunk:
> > > > I remember that there were some small things missing in CIFS
> > > > for completely replacing the unmaintained smbfs when we
> > > > discussed removing smbfs back in 2005 due to smbfs being
> > > > unmaintained.
> > > >
> > > > CIFS has improved since, smbfs is still unmaintained, and it's
> > > > becoming time to finally remove smbfs.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
> > > >
> > >
> > > "... unmaintained smbfs ..." is not quite right, see
> > >
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/6/94
> > > Before removing it now completely, drop
> > > Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> > > a note.
> > > Afaik, Redhat still has customers which rely on smbfs.
> > >
> >
> > Some of our older products use smbfs, but our newer stuff (RHEL5 and
> > up) have smbfs disabled. Fedora has had smbfs disabled for quite
> > some time as well. I've heard very few complaints (though maybe
> > they're just not getting to me).
> >
> > I have no problem with targeting smbfs for removal, but I thought
> > Andrew had an unofficial policy that we should first mark things to
> > be deprecated, and then remove them 2 releases later. That seems
> > like a sensible policy to me. If we mark it deprecated in 2.6.25
> > then we can remove it after 2.6.26 is released.
> >
> > It might not even hurt to have a nice loud printk when the smbfs
> > module is plugged in to warn users that it's slated to be removed,
> > and that they should move to CIFS as soon as possible.
>
> Andrew has this with a target date of December 2006 (sic) for the
> removal buried in -mm...
>
