> ==> Regarding Re: automount and nsswitch.conf; Mike Waychison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/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. _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
