"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>
> I don't know. Obviously there isn't a problem with distributing autofs
> maps via NIS... that has been supported all along. The only real
> argument I have seen is "all other Unices do it". Although it's a weak
Well, my argument would be that the NIS server would only contain
'global' maps, that are independent any local maps, but that share the
same mountpoint. The only example I can think of offhand would be a
removable media mountpoint. For example, let's say that every machine
has a floppy and a cdrom, so a map is created for /media/{floppy,cdrom}
and put in NIS. But let's say that a few computers have ZIP disks they
also want mounted under /media/zip100. They could have auto.media
contain the ZIP disk entry, and a "+" to get the remainder of auto.media
from NIS.
> argument, it is also a real argument although weakened by the fact that
> we're talking about local files here (there is absolutely no way to
> support this in anything but local file maps.)
Ahh, you mean a local file map as opposed to getting a NIS map with a
"+" in it. I don't believe anything like that has even been supported
(nor does it even make sense).
Christopher
