On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 04:04:47PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 08:51:06AM +1000, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > Known problem, with no fix yet AFAIK. It is not really related to
> > XFS at all, you're tripping it in XFS because we include some quite
> > recent quota patches in the XFS CVS trees (ie. the patches that've
> > just recently gone into 2.5.17) - you will find that you can no
> > longer build Samba with quota enabled if you have Linus' current
> > 2.5 headers below /usr/include/linux also.
> > This is a problem which needs to be fixed in Samba sources, they'll
> > need to have a local quota header file, rather than using the ones
> > below /usr/include/linux
> Why should we have to have a local quota header file ? Why can't
> it work on Linux like every other UNIX system - we don't need a
> local quota.h for them ?
Ah, I should have phrased that differently. It doesn't have to be
a local header, it just can't be a kernel header. Last time this
was discussed, consensus seemed to be that a local header in Samba
would be best. An alternative which was discussed briefly the last
time this came up, would be for the quota package to provide a new
header (eg. #include <quota/*.h>) and maybe a library... which other
folks like Samba could easily test for and make use of.
> This is not a Samba problem IMHO., but a Linux one.
Hmm... I think the direct inclusion of kernel headers in Samba is
going to have to change, no matter what solution is implemented.