Maybe someone can clarify this for me..the LiveCD, is:

(1) the INSTALL cd we're all familiar with or
(2) a Knoppix-like cd that boots into Gnome/KDE/<insert wm>

If (1), honestly...does someone NEED samba upon the install? if they
have broadband, they can download the files anyways.

If (2), this would be the only situation where I could see sticking what
is required for samba on the cd. It gives the users the ability to test
the waters of how easily they can share files linux <-> Windows.

I guess I am just concerned with adding bloat (someone mentioned another
22MB) to the cd where it's just not needed.

my 1+1 cents,
-jeffrey

On Wed, 2004-06-30 at 07:57, John Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 12:37, John Davis wrote:
> > Hey all -
> > SMB shares are fun and useful, but our present livecds are unable to
> > mount them. We do in fact have smbfs support in the kernel, but like
> > nfs, smb needs its userland tool samba to complete the mount (iirc). So,
> > are there any major objections to adding samba onto our livecds? 
> > 
> > Cheers,
> 
> Here is the error that I am getting from the test4 LiveCD -
> 
> livecd root# mount -t smbfs -o username=johnd //x.x.x.x/user /mnt/gentoo
> smbfs: mount_data version 1919251317 is not supported
> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on //x.x.x.x/user,
> 	or too many mounted file systems
> 
> If we can do this without Samba, great, but if we can't, we need to
> seriously evaluate adding it to the LiveCD. Earlier, someone in the
> thread posed the question of its importance.  SMB shares compose the
> majority of file shares out there, so we should be able to support it
> fully ;)
> 
> Cheers,
-- 


--------------------
Jeffrey Forman
Gentoo Infrastructure
Gentoo Release Engin.
jforman@gentoo.org
--------------------