* An offer to host autofs.org @ 2004-05-03 12:58 raven 2004-05-03 17:55 ` Tim Hockin 2004-05-04 18:04 ` An offer to host autofs.org H. Peter Anvin 0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: raven @ 2004-05-03 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: An offer to host autofs.org 2004-05-03 12:58 An offer to host autofs.org raven @ 2004-05-03 17:55 ` Tim Hockin 2004-05-04 0:32 ` Axel Thimm 2004-05-04 18:04 ` An offer to host autofs.org H. Peter Anvin 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Tim Hockin @ 2004-05-03 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: raven; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: An offer to host autofs.org 2004-05-03 17:55 ` Tim Hockin @ 2004-05-04 0:32 ` Axel Thimm 2004-05-04 1:10 ` Ian Kent 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Axel Thimm @ 2004-05-04 0:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tim Hockin; +Cc: autofs mailing list, raven [-- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: An offer to host autofs.org 2004-05-04 0:32 ` Axel Thimm @ 2004-05-04 1:10 ` Ian Kent 2004-05-04 1:09 ` Tim Hockin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Ian Kent @ 2004-05-04 1:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Axel Thimm; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: An offer to host autofs.org 2004-05-04 1:10 ` Ian Kent @ 2004-05-04 1:09 ` Tim Hockin 2004-05-04 1:21 ` humm " Alvin Oga 2004-05-04 12:25 ` Axel Thimm 0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Tim Hockin @ 2004-05-04 1:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ian Kent; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* humm Re: Re: An offer to host autofs.org 2004-05-04 1:09 ` Tim Hockin @ 2004-05-04 1:21 ` Alvin Oga 2004-05-04 12:25 ` Axel Thimm 1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Alvin Oga @ 2004-05-04 1:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tim Hockin; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: An offer to host autofs.org 2004-05-04 1:09 ` Tim Hockin 2004-05-04 1:21 ` humm " Alvin Oga @ 2004-05-04 12:25 ` Axel Thimm 2004-05-04 14:37 ` mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? Tom Georgoulias 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Axel Thimm @ 2004-05-04 12:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: autofs mailing list [-- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? 2004-05-04 12:25 ` Axel Thimm @ 2004-05-04 14:37 ` Tom Georgoulias 2004-05-04 14:53 ` raven 2004-05-04 15:05 ` Jeff Moyer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Tom Georgoulias @ 2004-05-04 14:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? 2004-05-04 14:37 ` mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? Tom Georgoulias @ 2004-05-04 14:53 ` raven 2004-05-04 15:26 ` Tom Georgoulias 2004-05-04 15:27 ` raven 2004-05-04 15:05 ` Jeff Moyer 1 sibling, 2 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: raven @ 2004-05-04 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Georgoulias; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? 2004-05-04 14:53 ` raven @ 2004-05-04 15:26 ` Tom Georgoulias 2004-05-04 15:37 ` raven 2004-05-04 15:27 ` raven 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Tom Georgoulias @ 2004-05-04 15:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: raven; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? 2004-05-04 15:26 ` Tom Georgoulias @ 2004-05-04 15:37 ` raven 2004-05-04 15:43 ` Tom Georgoulias 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: raven @ 2004-05-04 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Georgoulias; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? 2004-05-04 15:37 ` raven @ 2004-05-04 15:43 ` Tom Georgoulias 2004-05-04 15:52 ` raven 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Tom Georgoulias @ 2004-05-04 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: raven; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? 2004-05-04 15:43 ` Tom Georgoulias @ 2004-05-04 15:52 ` raven 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: raven @ 2004-05-04 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Georgoulias; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? 2004-05-04 14:53 ` raven 2004-05-04 15:26 ` Tom Georgoulias @ 2004-05-04 15:27 ` raven 1 sibling, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: raven @ 2004-05-04 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Georgoulias; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? 2004-05-04 14:37 ` mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? Tom Georgoulias 2004-05-04 14:53 ` raven @ 2004-05-04 15:05 ` Jeff Moyer 2004-05-04 15:22 ` raven 1 sibling, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Jeff Moyer @ 2004-05-04 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Georgoulias; +Cc: autofs mailing list ==> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? 2004-05-04 15:05 ` Jeff Moyer @ 2004-05-04 15:22 ` raven 2004-05-04 15:37 ` Tom Georgoulias 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: raven @ 2004-05-04 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jeff Moyer; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? 2004-05-04 15:22 ` raven @ 2004-05-04 15:37 ` Tom Georgoulias 2004-05-04 15:57 ` raven 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Tom Georgoulias @ 2004-05-04 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: raven; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? 2004-05-04 15:37 ` Tom Georgoulias @ 2004-05-04 15:57 ` raven 2004-05-04 20:41 ` Tom Georgoulias 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: raven @ 2004-05-04 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Georgoulias; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? 2004-05-04 15:57 ` raven @ 2004-05-04 20:41 ` Tom Georgoulias 2004-05-05 1:08 ` Ian Kent 0 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Tom Georgoulias @ 2004-05-04 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: raven; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? 2004-05-04 20:41 ` Tom Georgoulias @ 2004-05-05 1:08 ` Ian Kent 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Ian Kent @ 2004-05-05 1:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Georgoulias; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: An offer to host autofs.org 2004-05-03 12:58 An offer to host autofs.org raven 2004-05-03 17:55 ` Tim Hockin @ 2004-05-04 18:04 ` H. Peter Anvin 2004-05-04 18:21 ` fork - " Alvin Oga ` (4 more replies) 1 sibling, 5 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: H. Peter Anvin @ 2004-05-04 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: raven; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* fork - Re: An offer to host autofs.org 2004-05-04 18:04 ` An offer to host autofs.org H. Peter Anvin @ 2004-05-04 18:21 ` Alvin Oga 2004-05-04 18:26 ` Michael Blandford ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Alvin Oga @ 2004-05-04 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: H. Peter Anvin; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: An offer to host autofs.org 2004-05-04 18:04 ` An offer to host autofs.org H. Peter Anvin 2004-05-04 18:21 ` fork - " Alvin Oga @ 2004-05-04 18:26 ` Michael Blandford 2004-05-04 21:16 ` Mike Waychison ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Michael Blandford @ 2004-05-04 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: H. Peter Anvin; +Cc: autofs mailing list, raven 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: An offer to host autofs.org 2004-05-04 18:04 ` An offer to host autofs.org H. Peter Anvin 2004-05-04 18:21 ` fork - " Alvin Oga 2004-05-04 18:26 ` Michael Blandford @ 2004-05-04 21:16 ` Mike Waychison 2004-05-04 21:50 ` Axel Thimm 2004-05-05 1:16 ` Ian Kent 4 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Mike Waychison @ 2004-05-04 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: H. Peter Anvin; +Cc: autofs mailing list, raven -----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----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: An offer to host autofs.org 2004-05-04 18:04 ` An offer to host autofs.org H. Peter Anvin ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2004-05-04 21:16 ` Mike Waychison @ 2004-05-04 21:50 ` Axel Thimm 2004-05-04 22:04 ` Mike Waychison 2004-05-05 1:16 ` Ian Kent 4 siblings, 1 reply; 27+ messages in thread From: Axel Thimm @ 2004-05-04 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: H. Peter Anvin; +Cc: autofs mailing list, raven [-- 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: Re: An offer to host autofs.org 2004-05-04 21:50 ` Axel Thimm @ 2004-05-04 22:04 ` Mike Waychison 0 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Mike Waychison @ 2004-05-04 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Axel Thimm; +Cc: autofs mailing list, raven, H. Peter Anvin -----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----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
* Re: An offer to host autofs.org 2004-05-04 18:04 ` An offer to host autofs.org H. Peter Anvin ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2004-05-04 21:50 ` Axel Thimm @ 2004-05-05 1:16 ` Ian Kent 4 siblings, 0 replies; 27+ messages in thread From: Ian Kent @ 2004-05-05 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: H. Peter Anvin; +Cc: autofs mailing list 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 27+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-05-05 1:16 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 27+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2004-05-03 12:58 An offer to host autofs.org raven 2004-05-03 17:55 ` Tim Hockin 2004-05-04 0:32 ` Axel Thimm 2004-05-04 1:10 ` Ian Kent 2004-05-04 1:09 ` Tim Hockin 2004-05-04 1:21 ` humm " Alvin Oga 2004-05-04 12:25 ` Axel Thimm 2004-05-04 14:37 ` mount point created if automount map is empty during daemon startup? Tom Georgoulias 2004-05-04 14:53 ` raven 2004-05-04 15:26 ` Tom Georgoulias 2004-05-04 15:37 ` raven 2004-05-04 15:43 ` Tom Georgoulias 2004-05-04 15:52 ` raven 2004-05-04 15:27 ` raven 2004-05-04 15:05 ` Jeff Moyer 2004-05-04 15:22 ` raven 2004-05-04 15:37 ` Tom Georgoulias 2004-05-04 15:57 ` raven 2004-05-04 20:41 ` Tom Georgoulias 2004-05-05 1:08 ` Ian Kent 2004-05-04 18:04 ` An offer to host autofs.org H. Peter Anvin 2004-05-04 18:21 ` fork - " Alvin Oga 2004-05-04 18:26 ` Michael Blandford 2004-05-04 21:16 ` Mike Waychison 2004-05-04 21:50 ` Axel Thimm 2004-05-04 22:04 ` Mike Waychison 2004-05-05 1:16 ` Ian Kent
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.