LL 4.0 PCs are not joining Windows Workgroup

[Peejay]

[member=5916]trinidad[/member] Thank [size=1em]you for those links - they've got me deeper into the OS than I think I've ever been before![/size][size=1em]If I understand the debian bugs li[/size]nk they think t[size=1em]hey[/size]'ve fixed it:>[pre]> So for network shares to work out of the box I think this needs to be fixed, ideally in a way > that makes libsmbclient work without the need for /etc/samba/smb.conf (samba-common). This is fixed in 4.7 by commit 1199907cbe2f003a7df6f56e6cf3878d0732344d and is in Debian testing. We won't do this for stretch as this is not a stability or security fix. >
[size=1em]
Well, according to Synaptic I have libsmbclient 2:4.7.6 installed in Linux Lite 4.0 but there's no sign of it identifying a samba workgroup. I don't know if the version where the bug is dealt with has actually been fully released as yet but the numbers suggest it has and if so it doesn't look to me as though the fix is working.
I re-edited the LL4.0 smb.conf files to client max protocol = SMB3. This recreated the situation where the 2 LL4.0 machines could see each other but no Windows Network or Workgroup and the 3.8 machine could see only itself in the Windows Network workgroup.

I then re-edited the LL3.8 to remove reference to the client max protocol altogether, taking it back to the installed version for [global]. As if by magic the whole Windows Network Workgroup appeared, including LL4.0 machines and the ancient Linkstation.
In the meantime I had created shortcuts in Thunar to the fixed network addresses I'd set for all the devices, so all the direct connections appeared when I browsed the network too!

If I upgrade my 3rd machine to Linux Lite 4.0 then I look likely to lose sight of the Workgroup as an entity altogether but by creating shortcuts to network addresses I shan't lose any connectivity.

So in a way the query is Solved though it would be more correct to call it Understood. It looks to me as though the bug in libsmbclient still needs to be addressed if Thunar is going to continue to be relevant for Windows Networks in the SMB3 world but I am happy to be corrected if I have the wrong end of the stick (not at all unheard of for me).

I'd value a further response about this possible bug or not before marking the query as 'solved' but it certainly looks as though we've gone as far as we can with it and I am grateful to [member=5916]trinidad[/member] and [member=6629]ralphy[/member] for demystifying it for me - well to the limits of my comprehension at least!
[/size][/pre]