Followup to: <8m8pkq$p1r$1@enterprise.cistron.net>
By author: miquels@cistron.nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> >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..
>
Two, at least (amd uses it as well, now.) There are a number of
similar interface issues, though, and the fact remains this is at best
an ad hoc solution.
-hpa
-- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt- 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 - 21:00:12 EST