> ----- Original Message ----- > From: [email protected] > Sent: 04/02/13 08:44 PM > To: BLFS Support List > Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Autofs problem on LFS7.2 > > > Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:11:42 -0400 > > From: "Cliff McDiarmid" <[email protected]> > > To: "akhiezer" <[email protected]>, > > "BLFS Support List" > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Autofs problem on LFS7.2 > > > . > . > > Just to say that my '/etc/auto.testautomount' always had permissions 644. > > In fact autofs-5.0.7 installs permissions 644 to the 'auto.master' file > > from the outset, at least here. Sorry if i gave the wrong impression > > originally. > > > > > Eh? 'Always'? Your first sentence there talks about > '/etc/auto.testautomount'; > and the second sentence seems to be trying to reinforce the first, but is > talking about 'auto.master', which of course is a different file. > Am not clear what you're meaning; apols if/that am being a bit dumb. Taking > it > at face value, I'd ask: what about: > ---- > > Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 05:32:50 -0400 > > From: "Cliff McDiarmid" <[email protected]> > > To: "akhiezer" <[email protected]>, > > "BLFS Support List" > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [blfs-support] Autofs problem on LFS7.2 > > > . > . > > $ \ls -laF /etc/auto.master /etc/auto.testautomount > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 171 Mar 9 18:06 /etc/auto.master > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 43 Mar 25 21:08 /etc/auto.testautomount* > > $ > . > . > ---- > How was that output generated then? It shows that /etc/auto.master has 0644, > yes: > but /etc/auto.testautomount is shown clearly to have, at least at that point, > 0755
You are not dumb, it's me, I'm not seeing things clearly here. I definitely sent you a '/etc/auto.testautomount' file with 0755 permissions, and yet now it has 0644. I don't remember using chmod to change the permissions. I've just confirmed that with 0644 permissions the '/etc/auto.testautomount' does not need 'file' or 'sun' labels, i.e. it's the permission change that seems to seal it. > > > > > > > As for 'reason 1)': per earlier note today, one would really want to do > > > the > . > . > > You are right of course. This needs doing and I will try it in the near > > future and get back. This thread just won't lay down. > > > > > Well, I wouldn't necessarily feel _obliged_ to do it; but if you do then > great. > I might also manage to do it as a side-light on a new build here, soon-ish. I will sort it and try to get the summary right. Could this whole thing come down to permissions? regards Cliff -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
