From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joseph V Moss Subject: Re: Re: automount and nsswitch.conf Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:47:12 -0700 Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Message-ID: <4384.1089744432@ichips.intel.com> References: <16628.1468.732296.549859@segfault.boston.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:54:36 EDT." <16628.1468.732296.549859@segfault.boston.redhat.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: jmoyer@redhat.com Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org > ==> Regarding Re: automount and nsswitch.conf; Mike Waychison adds: > > [snip] > > >> Ok, my only beef here is that we are not at all honoring the semantics > >> of nsswitch.conf. I attest that this is a design flaw, but given the > >> Sun automounter legacy, I see now ay around it. We'll adhere to what is > >> done by all other automounters, even though it's wrong and poorly > >> documented. > >> > >> So, can I make the assumption that Suns's automounter does not then > >> honor the "reaction on lookup result", ala [NOTFOUND=return]? If so, > >> then > Michael.Waychison> our job > >> is a bit easier, though we are _still_ duplicating a parser, which I > >> despise. (I'll do it, I just won't like it ;) > >> H.P.A. was always quite opposed to using nsswitch.conf for autofs (see http://www.mail-archive.com/autofs@linux.kernel.org/msg00733.html and other messages in that thread, for example), but it does seem like it's a defacto standard that linux should be compatible with.