Ken Moffat wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 06:56:29PM -0400, Walter Webb wrote: >> Ken Moffat wrote: >>> I changed the bootscript recently (4th April) after 'Crider' reported >>> a problem with the sequence and provided a patch to correct it. Does >>> that version not work for you ?
>> It would work for me; not because it's right. > For me, that is 'good enough'. If someone provides a patch, and > another editor is able to test it, then it can be changed - I'm not > willing to spend more time on this. Don't send a patch for something as short as a bootscript. Just send the script. There is no need to compress it either. I'll be glad to test and update. >> First, the mount test was in the scripts long before kernel versions 3.x. >> It distinguished 2.6 kernels from earlier ones that did not have >> /proc/fs/nfsd. >> >> Comparing the sources of nfs-utils-1.2.5 with nfs-utils-1.1.4, I noticed >> that >> the later nfsd will attempt to mount /proc/fs/nfsd if it is not already >> mounted. >> The earlier one does not. Whether or not a separate mount is needed, >> depends upon the nfs-utils version. > With LFS-7.0, nfs has only worked at all with 1.2 (BLFS went to > 1.2.5 at the beginning of November but it took some time after that > to get portmap replaced by rpcbind, and longer still to get the > *server* working reliably (arguably, only with the recent bootscript > change). > > If you are running an earlier version of LFS, or an earlier version > of nfs-utils, I think you need the earlier bootscripts. I know Bruce > has expressed a different view re earlier versions of LFS. I have no problems with earlier versions using earlier scripts. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
