An offer to host autofs.org

An offer to host autofs.org

[raven]

Hi all,

Axel Thim of ATrpms.net has contacted us and offered to fund the domain 
autofs.org and provide web, lists, CVS/subversion infrastructure under the 
same resourse structure as ATrpms.org.

Can we discus the oppertunities, implications, our needs and any other 
issues please.

I believe Axel is present to take part in the discussion.

Ian

Re: An offer to host autofs.org

[Tim Hockin]

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 08:58:35PM +0800, raven@themaw.net wrote:
> Axel Thim of ATrpms.net has contacted us and offered to fund the domain 
> autofs.org and provide web, lists, CVS/subversion infrastructure under the 
> same resourse structure as ATrpms.org.

what's wrong with sf.net?

Re: An offer to host autofs.org

[Axel Thimm]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1144 bytes --]

Hi,

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 10:55:06AM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 08:58:35PM +0800, raven@themaw.net wrote:
> > Axel Thim of ATrpms.net has contacted us and offered to fund the domain 
> > autofs.org and provide web, lists, CVS/subversion infrastructure under the 
> > same resourse structure as ATrpms.org.
> 
> what's wrong with sf.net?

Nothing per se. sf.net would also be something to consider. Pro/Cons
are

+ sf.net has infrastructure in place for setting up projects with the
  above mentioned resources
+ guaranteed independence of any resource manager
+ mirroring inclusive
- No subversion (yet?)
- Anon CVS lagging behind
- list management could be better
- bug reporting system (if used at all) is not as good as a bugzilla
  instance (depending on taste).

In general a custom setup offers more flexibility and I could confirm
that the hosting site would run autofs itself ;)

I could also setup a wiki.autofs.org to have users contribute
documentation, example setups etc.

Anyway that would be just a way to say thanks for us using autofs4 :)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 140 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
autofs@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs

Re: Re: An offer to host autofs.org

[Tim Hockin]

On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 09:10:27AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > - No subversion (yet?)
> 
> I've checked out subversion.
> 
> It's more than capable of dealing with the our couple of simple autofs 
> projects but could be just what's needed by other autofs contributors.

Seeing as autofs is open, what's wrong with BK?  BK rockssssss

Re: Re: An offer to host autofs.org

[Ian Kent]

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Axel Thimm wrote:

> - No subversion (yet?)

I've checked out subversion.

It's more than capable of dealing with the our couple of simple autofs 
projects but could be just what's needed by other autofs contributors.

Ian

humm Re: Re: An offer to host autofs.org

[Alvin Oga]

hi ya

On Mon, 3 May 2004, Tim Hockin wrote:

> Seeing as autofs is open, what's wrong with BK?  BK rockssssss

getting the autofs.org domain name is trivial ... 
	- i've always wondered why nobody got it

is autofs(4) looking for a new home ???

is hpa lending the resources of kernel.org for autofs4 ??
	- i think its best to keep autofs4 close to the kernel
	in my limited view 

if autofs needs some machines for testing ... there's
plenty of spare metal around here

--------

why one app is better than another is the general issues
	- and the users should decide and/or even better
	if the two systems can co-exists
	( eg  sourceforge + sf.net + yet-another-hosting

- only major issue is  license terms and use of otehr peoples
  machines and connectivity and datacenters
  (the marketing/ceo/cfo/laywers are starting to get into the picture

c ya
alvin

Re: An offer to host autofs.org

[Axel Thimm]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1858 bytes --]

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 06:09:28PM -0700, Tim Hockin wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 09:10:27AM +0800, Ian Kent wrote:
> > On Tue, 4 May 2004, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > - No subversion (yet?)
> > 
> > I've checked out subversion.
> > 
> > It's more than capable of dealing with the our couple of simple autofs 
> > projects but could be just what's needed by other autofs contributors.
> 
> Seeing as autofs is open, what's wrong with BK?  BK rockssssss

But BK is not open ;)

I could also setup BK instead of subversion, I'd leave that to the
core developers' taste & decision.

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 06:21:20PM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
> why one app is better than another is the general issues
> 	- and the users should decide and/or even better
> 	if the two systems can co-exists
> 	( eg  sourceforge + sf.net + yet-another-hosting

I wouldn't fragment autofs (or any other project) across too many
locations w/o a good reason (the reasons are usually that you don't
get the services you need at the location you currently reside,
for example you need a different SCM).

> - only major issue is  license terms and use of otehr peoples
>   machines and connectivity and datacenters
>   (the marketing/ceo/cfo/laywers are starting to get into the picture

I probably forgot to note that the hosting offer is not coming from a
commercial company, but the physics department of a university in
Berlin (Freie Universität Berlin). I haven't see lawyers or marketing
folks other that wanna-become students on their way to lunch ;)

There is also nobody in my vicinity including me making money out of
autofs. Autofs just makes lives of local system adminstrators under
Linux nicer, which I cannot enumerate in Dollars or Euros. In return
we offer to make development of autofs nicer. :)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 140 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
autofs@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs

mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?

[Tom Georgoulias]

Ran into an issue today where many of my systems running autofs4 do not 
have a mount point for one my automount maps.  The map in question, 
auto.sync, has existed since mid-March but remained empty until last 
week when an entry was added to create the /sync/caches mount.  Is this 
expected behavior or do I have a misconfiguration or bug on my hands?

hatfield12:tomg$ ypcat -k auto.sync
cache duncan:/vol/vol02/sync_caches/&
hatfield12:tomg$ ls -ld /sync
ls: /sync: No such file or directory
hatfield12:tomg$ /sbin/service autofs status | grep sync
/usr/sbin/automount /sync yp auto.sync -rw,hard,intr rsize=32768,wsize=32768

I am running an RPM of autofs-4.1.1 with several patches from the 
mailing list and from Red Hat.  From the changelog:

* Wed Mar 31 2004 Tom Georgoulias <tom.georgoulias@motorola.com> - 
1:4.1.1-3t
- patch to send HUP during reload (from autofs list)
- patch to clarify direct map doc (from autofs list)
- comment out creation of /net & /misc dirs

* Thu Mar 18 2004 Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> - 1:4.1.1-3

- Fix bug in get_best_mount, whereby if there is only one option, we
   choose nothing.  This is primarily due to the fact that we pass 0 in to
   the get_best_mount function for the long timeout parameter.  So, we
   timeout trying to contact our first and only server, and never retry.

* Thu Mar 18 2004 Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> - 1:4.1.1-2

- Prevent startup if a mountpoint is already mounted.

Thanks for any help.

Tom
-- 
Tom Georgoulias
POPI Classification
[x] General Business Information
[] Freescale Semiconductor Internal Use
[] Freescale Semiconductor Confidential Proprietary

Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?

[raven]

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Tom Georgoulias wrote:

> Ran into an issue today where many of my systems running autofs4 do not 
> have a mount point for one my automount maps.  The map in question, 
> auto.sync, has existed since mid-March but remained empty until last 
> week when an entry was added to create the /sync/caches mount.  Is this 
> expected behavior or do I have a misconfiguration or bug on my hands?
> 
> hatfield12:tomg$ ypcat -k auto.sync
> cache duncan:/vol/vol02/sync_caches/&
> hatfield12:tomg$ ls -ld /sync
> ls: /sync: No such file or directory
> hatfield12:tomg$ /sbin/service autofs status | grep sync
> /usr/sbin/automount /sync yp auto.sync -rw,hard,intr rsize=32768,wsize=32768
>

Bit odd.

I'll try to duplicate this using an empty map.

Can you try killing and then starting that automount process by hand.

Just send a normal (TERM) kill and see if it exits normally.

I would be interested in seeing anything in the log.

Ian

Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?

[Jeff Moyer]

==> Regarding [autofs]  mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?; Tom Georgoulias <tom.georgoulias@freescale.com> adds:

[snip]

tom.georgoulias> * Thu Mar 18 2004 Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> -
tom.georgoulias> 1:4.1.1-3

tom.georgoulias> - Fix bug in get_best_mount, whereby if there is only one
tom.georgoulias> option, we choose nothing.  This is primarily due to the
tom.georgoulias> fact that we pass 0 in to the get_best_mount function for
tom.georgoulias> the long timeout parameter.  So, we timeout trying to
tom.georgoulias> contact our first and only server, and never retry.

Ugh, skeleton is out of the closet.  ;-P  To clarify, I only saw this when
the map was an LDAP map (which I thought should make absolutely no
difference).  This patch is actually just a work-around.  I was hoping to
track down the real issue later...

-Jeff

Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?

[raven]

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Jeff Moyer wrote:

> ==> Regarding [autofs]  mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?; Tom Georgoulias <tom.georgoulias@freescale.com> adds:
> 
> [snip]
> 
> tom.georgoulias> * Thu Mar 18 2004 Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> -
> tom.georgoulias> 1:4.1.1-3
> 
> tom.georgoulias> - Fix bug in get_best_mount, whereby if there is only one
> tom.georgoulias> option, we choose nothing.  This is primarily due to the
> tom.georgoulias> fact that we pass 0 in to the get_best_mount function for
> tom.georgoulias> the long timeout parameter.  So, we timeout trying to
> tom.georgoulias> contact our first and only server, and never retry.
> 
> Ugh, skeleton is out of the closet.  ;-P  To clarify, I only saw this when
> the map was an LDAP map (which I thought should make absolutely no
> difference).  This patch is actually just a work-around.  I was hoping to
> track down the real issue later...

Saw that patch. Was a bit curious about it. Didn't add it.

I think that I discovered that the error return from get_best_mount was 
not being checked. This may have been the cause of that.

I thought that was fixed.

CHANGELOG says 4.1.2.

I think the replicated server behaviour is working OK now. Fingers 
crossed.

Ian

Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?

[Tom Georgoulias]

raven@themaw.net wrote:

> Can you try killing and then starting that automount process by hand.

There wasn't any daemon running for that mount, so I started it by hand 
and the mount is now functional.

I'm really confused as to why there wasn't a daemon running in the first 
place.  There should've been, right?  I just checked a second system 
where this was an issue and it is the same, not automount running for 
/sync.  Starting it manually also gets the mount working.

[root@hatfield12 init.d]# ps -ef | grep sync
root      1952 30817  0 09:57 pts/1    00:00:00 grep sync
[root@hatfield12 init.d]# /usr/sbin/automount /sync yp auto.sync 
-rw,hard,intr rsize=32768,wsize=32768
[root@hatfield12 init.d]# ls /
bin     designs  eng     home    lost+found  proc  sbin  sync     usr
boot    dev      etc     initrd  mnt         proj  sea   tmp      var
design  docs     extern  lib     opt         root  soc   _TOOLS_
[root@hatfield12 init.d]# cd /sync
[root@hatfield12 sync]# ls
[root@hatfield12 sync]# cd cache/tx30/tec/moccasin/s9a/
[root@hatfield12 s9a]# ls
s9a003a358100a3fb-1.1-1066343169-0    s9a8254af9c23b915-1.21-1079127946-0
s9a01243cb66ae420-1.5-1077918456-0    s9a8254af9c23b915-1.22-1082349030-0
s9a01d98600756aeb-1.1-1078525174-dir  s9a8254af9c23b915-1.23-1083337330-0
s9a020e8a919ca408-1.1-1061176253-0    s9a82a9998c51e8c9-1.1-1058813656-0
s9a021d52f809fdbc-1.2-1078845514-0    s9a83027946cc8cd7-1.2-1046231817-0

> 
> Just send a normal (TERM) kill and see if it exits normally.
> 
> I would be interested in seeing anything in the log.

There doesn't seem to be anything related to this map, save for the 
event when I ran a script that sends a HUP to the daemon responsible for 
this map and noticed this problem all together.

Is there a particular string you'd like for me to search against?

[root@hatfield12 log]# grep auto.sync messages
Feb 20 09:57:34 hatfield12 automount[1597]: starting automounter version 
4.1.0, path = /sync, maptype = yp, mapname = auto.sync
Feb 20 15:33:42 hatfield12 automount[25801]: starting automounter 
version 4.1.0, path = /sync, maptype = yp, mapname = auto.sync
Feb 20 15:59:47 hatfield12 automount[1609]: starting automounter version 
4.1.0, path = /sync, maptype = yp, mapname = auto.sync
Feb 20 16:35:52 hatfield12 automount[1605]: starting automounter version 
4.1.0, path = /sync, maptype = yp, mapname = auto.sync
Mar 20 08:50:41 hatfield12 automount[1257]: starting automounter version 
4.1.0, path = /sync, maptype = yp, mapname = auto.sync
Mar 21 11:38:57 hatfield12 automount[1273]: starting automounter version 
4.1.0, path = /sync, maptype = yp, mapname = auto.sync
May  4 08:26:51 hatfield12 in.rshd[23849]: root@bender as root: 
cmd='pkill -HUP -f auto.sync'

-- 
Tom Georgoulias
POPI Classification
[x] General Business Information
[] Freescale Semiconductor Internal Use
[] Freescale Semiconductor Confidential Proprietary

Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?

[raven]

On Tue, 4 May 2004 raven@themaw.net wrote:

> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Tom Georgoulias wrote:
> 
> > Ran into an issue today where many of my systems running autofs4 do not 
> > have a mount point for one my automount maps.  The map in question, 
> > auto.sync, has existed since mid-March but remained empty until last 
> > week when an entry was added to create the /sync/caches mount.  Is this 
> > expected behavior or do I have a misconfiguration or bug on my hands?
> > 
> > hatfield12:tomg$ ypcat -k auto.sync
> > cache duncan:/vol/vol02/sync_caches/&
> > hatfield12:tomg$ ls -ld /sync
> > ls: /sync: No such file or directory
> > hatfield12:tomg$ /sbin/service autofs status | grep sync
> > /usr/sbin/automount /sync yp auto.sync -rw,hard,intr rsize=32768,wsize=32768
> >
> 
> Bit odd.
> 
> I'll try to duplicate this using an empty map.

Mmm. Tried this with an empty file map.
Got a "failed to load map, exiting" message.
Seems reasonable to me.

Can you update to Jeff Moyers latest RPM please.

Ian

Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?

[raven]

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Tom Georgoulias wrote:

> raven@themaw.net wrote:
> 
> > Can you try killing and then starting that automount process by hand.
> 
> There wasn't any daemon running for that mount, so I started it by hand 
> and the mount is now functional.
> 
> I'm really confused as to why there wasn't a daemon running in the first 
> place.  There should've been, right?  I just checked a second system 
> where this was an issue and it is the same, not automount running for 
> /sync.  Starting it manually also gets the mount working.

Yes, I check it. See my last post on this.

We'll leave this to the people on the list to decide whether this 
behaviour should be changed.

Ian

Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?

[Tom Georgoulias]

raven@themaw.net wrote:

> Saw that patch. Was a bit curious about it. Didn't add it.

And it sounds like I ought to remove it, too.  :)

Judging by your test results on an empty map, an upgrade to 4.1.2 is in 
order.  Thanks for checking in to that, I appreciate it. I'll start 
working on getting out a new build of autofs to my systems.  4.1.3 is 
just around the corner, right?

Tom
-- 
Tom Georgoulias
POPI Classification
[x] General Business Information
[] Freescale Semiconductor Internal Use
[] Freescale Semiconductor Confidential Proprietary

Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?

[Tom Georgoulias]

raven@themaw.net wrote:

> We'll leave this to the people on the list to decide whether this 
> behaviour should be changed.

Well, from our point of view, it is nice to be able to create maps that 
are empty at first and not have to worry about populating them until 
later.  This gives us our group the flexibility to plan out in advance 
how our mounts will look, put the necessary mount points in place during 
the regular maintenance intervals (by rebooting the systems, something 
we can't always do), and adding map entries later on as the data is 
moved to the new location.

Just my two cents.

Tom

-- 
Tom Georgoulias
POPI Classification
[x] General Business Information
[] Freescale Semiconductor Internal Use
[] Freescale Semiconductor Confidential Proprietary

Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?

[raven]

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Tom Georgoulias wrote:

> raven@themaw.net wrote:
> 
> > We'll leave this to the people on the list to decide whether this 
> > behaviour should be changed.
> 
> Well, from our point of view, it is nice to be able to create maps that 
> are empty at first and not have to worry about populating them until 
> later.  This gives us our group the flexibility to plan out in advance 
> how our mounts will look, put the necessary mount points in place during 
> the regular maintenance intervals (by rebooting the systems, something 
> we can't always do), and adding map entries later on as the data is 
> moved to the new location.
> 

Good point.

I'll be poking around to see what this means for the autofs code anyway.

Ian

Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?

[raven]

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Tom Georgoulias wrote:

> raven@themaw.net wrote:
> 
> > Saw that patch. Was a bit curious about it. Didn't add it.
> 
> And it sounds like I ought to remove it, too.  :)
> 
> Judging by your test results on an empty map, an upgrade to 4.1.2 is in 
> order.  Thanks for checking in to that, I appreciate it. I'll start 
> working on getting out a new build of autofs to my systems.  4.1.3 is 
> just around the corner, right?
> 

Yes.

Yet another bug fix release.

Not much in it.

CHANGELOG so far:

xx/xx/2004 autofs-4.1.3
-----------------------
- fixed bug processing --verbose option in init scripts.
- added missing parameter in call to run fsck on ext2 module (from Jeff 
Moyer).
- added check for executable existance in getldapmounts in init script.
- updated comment about option handling in getmounts in init script.
- updated kernel module patches.
- fix to init script for reload option.
- autofs now requires autoconf later than 2.5

Plus the replicated server patch I'm currently working on and another 
kernel module patch update.

I think that will be it for 4.1.3 as the kernel module patches need to be 
updated due to corrections.

Ian

Re: An offer to host autofs.org

[H. Peter Anvin]

raven@themaw.net wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Axel Thim of ATrpms.net has contacted us and offered to fund the domain 
> autofs.org and provide web, lists, CVS/subversion infrastructure under the 
> same resourse structure as ATrpms.org.
> 
> Can we discus the oppertunities, implications, our needs and any other 
> issues please.
> 
> I believe Axel is present to take part in the discussion.
> 

I have several objections to this proposal.

First of all, I still want the full autofs rewrite -- autofs 5 -- done 
at some point, and I think this infrastructure would be in the way.

As far as BK is concerned, the license is absolutely facist since it 
bans you from doing open source development in certain areas.  For 
obvious reasons this is unacceptable to me.

	-hpa

fork - Re: An offer to host autofs.org

[Alvin Oga]

hi ya

On Tue, 4 May 2004, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> raven@themaw.net wrote:

> > Axel Thim of ATrpms.net has contacted us and offered to fund the domain 
> > autofs.org and provide web, lists, CVS/subversion infrastructure under the 
> > same resourse structure as ATrpms.org.

one can register a domain for $6.95... whoopie ...
and free domain reg if you reallly dont wantto pay that
 
> > Can we discus the oppertunities, implications, our needs and any other 
> > issues please.
> > 
> > I believe Axel is present to take part in the discussion.
> > 
> 
> I have several objections to this proposal.
> 
> First of all, I still want the full autofs rewrite -- autofs 5 -- done 
> at some point, and I think this infrastructure would be in the way.
> 
> As far as BK is concerned, the license is absolutely facist since it 
> bans you from doing open source development in certain areas.  For 
> obvious reasons this is unacceptable to me.

if one was to fork ( new version ) of a gpl code ..
	- can the new fork keep the original name ??

and since autofs is part of the kernel... it'd probably be a good
thing to keep it in good developement team so it can continue to
stay as part of the kernel

personally, i like the gpl licenses that require all updates
and enhancements to be put back into the originating source
vs spawning yet another variant

c ya
alvin

- its good that the iptables folks is enforcing their licenses,
  that any derivative work needs to be open source too

Re: An offer to host autofs.org

[Michael Blandford]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> I have several objections to this proposal.
>
> First of all, I still want the full autofs rewrite -- autofs 5 -- done 
> at some point, and I think this infrastructure would be in the way.
>
Can you elaborate on why you feel like it would be in the way?

Michael


Disclaimer: The content of this message is my personal opinion only and 
although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way 
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on 
behalf of Intel on this matter.

Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?

[Tom Georgoulias]

raven@themaw.net wrote:
> On Tue, 4 May 2004, Tom Georgoulias wrote:
> 
> 
>>raven@themaw.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Saw that patch. Was a bit curious about it. Didn't add it.
>>
>>And it sounds like I ought to remove it, too.  :)
>>
>>Judging by your test results on an empty map, an upgrade to 4.1.2 is in 
>>order.  Thanks for checking in to that, I appreciate it. I'll start 
>>working on getting out a new build of autofs to my systems.  4.1.3 is 
>>just around the corner, right?
>>
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Yet another bug fix release.
> 
> Not much in it.
> 
> CHANGELOG so far:
> 
> xx/xx/2004 autofs-4.1.3
> -----------------------
> - fixed bug processing --verbose option in init scripts.
> - added missing parameter in call to run fsck on ext2 module (from Jeff 
> Moyer).
> - added check for executable existance in getldapmounts in init script.
> - updated comment about option handling in getmounts in init script.
> - updated kernel module patches.
> - fix to init script for reload option.
> - autofs now requires autoconf later than 2.5
> 
> Plus the replicated server patch I'm currently working on and another 
> kernel module patch update.
> 
> I think that will be it for 4.1.3 as the kernel module patches need to be 
> updated due to corrections.

Should I wait for the kernel module patches or just go ahead with testing?

I have set aside a Red Hat 8 system to test out the latest patches you 
have written and want to be sure I make this test as productive as 
possible for all.

I'm looking at either running the autofs 4.1.2 plus patches from 
kernel.org, or Jeff Moyer's latest RPM, 4.1.2-5, and using either the 
04172004 kernel module patch or waiting for a new one.

Tom
-- 
Tom Georgoulias
POPI Classification
[x] General Business Information
[] Freescale Semiconductor Internal Use
[] Freescale Semiconductor Confidential Proprietary

Re: An offer to host autofs.org

[Mike Waychison]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

H. Peter Anvin wrote:

>
> First of all, I still want the full autofs rewrite -- autofs 5 -- done
> at some point, and I think this infrastructure would be in the way.
>

FYI, Sun is still going strong with the autofs rewrite described at:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=107341940326348&w=2

We have already made several inroads towards a next-generation autofs
implementation and hope to release our changes to developers in the
coming weeks.

Thanks,

- --
Mike Waychison
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
1 (650) 352-5299 voice
1 (416) 202-8336 voice
mailto: Michael.Waychison@Sun.COM
http://www.sun.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTICE:  The opinions expressed in this email are held by me,
and may not represent the views of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAmAgkdQs4kOxk3/MRArkWAJ48Sa3ckNgKmbhEEViFKULE2oknUACePces
SwwV99Lwx8K+/xBVENwlGPE=
=tHKD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: An offer to host autofs.org

[Axel Thimm]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1381 bytes --]

On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:04:55AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> raven@themaw.net wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Axel Thim of ATrpms.net has contacted us and offered to fund the domain 
> >autofs.org and provide web, lists, CVS/subversion infrastructure under the 
> >same resourse structure as ATrpms.org.
> >
> >Can we discus the oppertunities, implications, our needs and any other 
> >issues please.
> >
> >I believe Axel is present to take part in the discussion.
> >
> 
> I have several objections to this proposal.
> 
> First of all, I still want the full autofs rewrite -- autofs 5 -- done 
> at some point, and I think this infrastructure would be in the way.

OK, then the infrastructure would have had totally failed its
purpose. The offer was about easying developers' work and have a place
to gather documentation.

Why do you think the infrastructure will fail?

> As far as BK is concerned, the license is absolutely facist since it 
> bans you from doing open source development in certain areas.  For 
> obvious reasons this is unacceptable to me.

I didn't want to place it into such wordings, but I agree. ;)

My personal suggestion is to go with subversion. But even CVS is not a
blocker (if there is no consensus on something else) as it can still
be upgraded to subversion at a later point in time.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 140 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
autofs@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs

Re: Re: An offer to host autofs.org

[Mike Waychison]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 11:04:55AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>As far as BK is concerned, the license is absolutely facist since it
>>bans you from doing open source development in certain areas.  For
>>obvious reasons this is unacceptable to me.
>
>
> I didn't want to place it into such wordings, but I agree. ;)
>
> My personal suggestion is to go with subversion. But even CVS is not a
> blocker (if there is no consensus on something else) as it can still
> be upgraded to subversion at a later point in time.

Licensing opinions aside, using bitkeeper for the kernel stuff has a
much desired benefit of making the tracking of the mainline kernel much
easier.

As for the userland stuff, I don't see a great need for anything more
than CVS.

- --
Mike Waychison
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
1 (650) 352-5299 voice
1 (416) 202-8336 voice
mailto: Michael.Waychison@Sun.COM
http://www.sun.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTICE:  The opinions expressed in this email are held by me,
and may not represent the views of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAmBNSdQs4kOxk3/MRAgORAKCTYAlfhabWiG3UHiIs1YwNnjLdHgCeMSxm
sQS4qOQ4qtszpmZy/9rOL0g=
=/9KY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup?

[Ian Kent]

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Tom Georgoulias wrote:

> 
> Should I wait for the kernel module patches or just go ahead with testing?
> 
> I have set aside a Red Hat 8 system to test out the latest patches you 
> have written and want to be sure I make this test as productive as 
> possible for all.
> 
> I'm looking at either running the autofs 4.1.2 plus patches from 
> kernel.org, or Jeff Moyer's latest RPM, 4.1.2-5, and using either the 
> 04172004 kernel module patch or waiting for a new one.

It would be OK but 20040417 is a little old. I've just updated the kernel 
modules last night. I haven't made the patches yet. People kept firing of 
bug reports you know.

You won't need to wait for autofs as I will be placing them on kernel.org. 
I expect that will happen tonight (my time).

Ian

Re: An offer to host autofs.org

[Ian Kent]

On Tue, 4 May 2004, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> raven@themaw.net wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Axel Thim of ATrpms.net has contacted us and offered to fund the domain 
> > autofs.org and provide web, lists, CVS/subversion infrastructure under the 
> > same resourse structure as ATrpms.org.
> > 
> > Can we discus the oppertunities, implications, our needs and any other 
> > issues please.
> > 
> > I believe Axel is present to take part in the discussion.
> > 
> 
> I have several objections to this proposal.
> 
> First of all, I still want the full autofs rewrite -- autofs 5 -- done 
> at some point, and I think this infrastructure would be in the way.

And I will push v4 as far as it can go to give give breathing space for it 
to be done throughly, without pressure.

Will you be leading that project?
Will Mike Waychisons' proposed framework be used?
When can we start on nailing a specification?

Will I get a chance to contribute??

What infrastructure framework do you feel we need for this?

Ian