Am Montag, den 30.06.2008, 23:08 +0200 schrieb Andreas Schneider:
> Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> > Yeah, samba and samba-ctl (or sambactl ?) seems better to me as well.
> I wouldn't add the the net command to samba-ctl. I think it is a good approach
> to have the same command on Linux and Windows and people are used to it.
I think it makes sense for at least parts ("daemon maintainance") of
it to be added to such a binary aka samba-ctl, along with smbstatus and testparm.
Adding everything from net to samba-ctl may be a bit too much.

There are lots of difference between Windows and Linux, and I think
learning that "net" is called "samba-ctl" on Linux for people who are
migrating really isn't an issue.

> And I'm sure it will break a lot of scripts and other tools which use the
> 'net' command. An option would be that net is a wrapper for
> samba-ctrl.
Some things are going to break in the UI between 3 and 4 anyway; I'm not
sure this should be a big concern.

Cheers,

Jelmer
--
Jelmer Vernooij - http://samba.org/~jelmer/
Jabber: jelmer@jabber.fsfe.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iJwEAAECAAYFAkhpVBYACgkQDLQl4QYPZuXs7QP6AobAEuppbM pGcziHIsxhoMB0
tAd5ZSBwWF+4qZ7t05/tfnTWWMjO1UJp7uqR76WT350kKNOhaZLS2tVi9WmwyhT1
aKfPZfaih1yKIGN3wTbXvaFuzGSuhxekHRuCKAv6KJRPDmwefP pog2K598O6j3qU
gI+dszxzItAoip2XW2k=
=mYk3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----