Subject: Re: RE: netatalk in production environments...Definitive

From: "jeff b" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:37:01 +0000 (GMT)

On Thu, 01 Jun 2000 Luke McNeilage  wrote:
-- SNIP --
> 
> Crucify me if you think I'm wrong, but mine works, but I can't explain
it.
> There needs to be a concerted effort with new documentation on all this
if
> we are ever going to pull it together. I run 50 servers, servicing over
500
> users in mixed smb and netatalk environments.

I'll agree with this one. Documentation for netatalk is nearly impossible
to come by, and usually does not concern the latest version.

> Now we are just a startup so I am paddling like an army of ducks, but one
of
> the first things I intend to do in any future quite time, is re-write
this
> chaos.

I've been trying to keep tabs on the patches to
netatalk-1.4b2+asun2.1.4pre{37,39}, since I've been trying to keep my RPM
packaging for netatalk up to date with these patches. Going back to your
earlier statement, this would probably be a lot easier if a resource
existed that was somewhat more up to date than the Netatalk Faq-o-Matic.
     
Adrian seemed to not really be sure of when he was going to release
1.4b2+asun2.1.4, but I had the idea that he wanted to rework some of the
things that we have all been complaining about. (Perhaps the current
maintainers of netatalk-1.4b2 will turn over control to him, since they
haven't modified the code in over two years, I believe)

*************************
jeff b
system administrator
university communications
university of connecticut
[email-masked]

---

From: Patrik Schindler <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 08:09:15 +0200

>existed that was somewhat more up to date than the Netatalk Faq-o-Matic.

If there's interest in such a a thingie, I can provide php script for this (needs mysql at the moment) if the umich people won't run the faq anymore when we decide to get netatalk to sourceforge.

:wq! PoC

---

From: Harry Zink/Netatalk List <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 13:18:55 -0700

on 6/1/00 6:37 AM, jeff b at [email-masked] wrote:

> (Perhaps the current

:-)

Would such a passing of the baton even be necessary at this point?

Harry