"Christopher W. Curtis" wrote:
>
> "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.
Right... note that the "multi" map facility in the current autofs does
exactly that. However, the "+" syntax -- which I maintain is a much
worse choice technically -- is what other Unices use...
> > 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).
Right.
--
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> at work, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt
