hi ya steve
> I agree with your analysis, but was short on time when I worked
> on this. The option parsing routine will need to be beefed up in
> order to support this approach. Also, if someone else is already
> working on the issue, I don't want to butt in. Do you know who
> the current maintainer for this code is?
hans is the author and maintainer of autofs...
he's on this mailing list...so he probably looked at your stuff
along with lots of other people's submissions.... probably has
his hands full right now
have fun linuxing
alvin
> > > Pargon me for repeating my previous post, but I'm looking for
> > > some feedback. I need to know if I'm reinventing the wheel
> > > or taking appropriate action. Here is my post from June 20.
> >
> > to me, to support the old smbmount or new smbmount syntax would
> > mean adding an option -newsmb to autofs...
> >
> > somewhere in autofs code:
> >
> > if ( newsmb ) {
> > smbmount $Share -P $Passwd -c 'mount $MntPoint' -U $USR
> > } else {
> > smbmount $Share $MntPoint -U $USR -P $Passwd
> > }
> >
> > or something along that line will solve the problem... at least
> > in my simplistic view...
> >
> > - a new autofs that does not support the old syntax will create
> > too much headache...
> >
> > thanx
> > alvin
> >
> > > >The smbmount command has adopted a new syntax which is no longer
> > > >consistent with the current version of autofs. I am currently using:
> > > >autofs version 3.1.3
> > > >smbmount version 2.0.3
> > > >
> > > >I looked at autofs-3.1.4-pre3.patch.gz and it did not appear to=20
> > > >address the new smbmount syntax. I prepared a patch to allow autofs=20
> > > >to work with the new smbmount syntax. Unfortunately, It does not
> > > >handle both old and new syntax.=20
> > > >
> > > >A copy of the patch(it's short) is included in case it is of any use=20
> > > >to the maintainer. Also, constructive criticism would be welcome
> > > >as this is the first time I have submitted a patch of any kind.
> > > --
> > > _______________________________________________________
> > > Steve N. McCall: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
