In article >8m7pci$fbt$1@cesium.transmeta.com>,
H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
>Followup to: <20000801185531.B2091@thune.mrc-home.org>
>By author: Mike Castle <dalgoda@ix.netcom.com>
>In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>>
>> If they are so stable, then why does it matter which version of the kernel
>> glibc was built against and why aren't those kernel headers good enough to
>> accomplish what automounter needs?
>>
>
>They usually are just fine. However, if the automount protocol is
>updated, we don't want to *have* to sit through a full glibc release
>cycle.
It sounds like autofs should come with it's own copy of the
needed definitions and header files then. Now if there were 20
applications all using the autofs interface to the kernel then
it would be different, but if it's just one standard implementation..
Mike.
-- Cistron Certified Internetwork Expert #1. Think free speech; drink free beer.- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 21:00:08 EST