Opened 18 years ago

Closed 18 years ago

#1716 closed defect (fixed)

Autofs-4.1.4 Patches

Reported by: Randy McMurchy Owned by: bdubbs@…
Priority: normal Milestone: 6.2.0
Component: BOOK Version: SVN
Severity: normal Keywords:
Cc:

Description (last modified by bdubbs@…)

There are two additional patches that need to be added to the Autofs instructions. See the URL above for the patch locations

Change History (7)

comment:1 by bdubbs@…, 18 years ago

Description: modified (diff)

Unfortunately, we seem to have lost the URL in the Trac conversion. Can we recreate it?

comment:2 by Randy McMurchy, 18 years ago

Milestone: future6.2
Severity: normalmajor

Hmmmm...

There are already patches for this package. The "additional" should be a dead giveaway that the URL wouldn't be that difficult to ascertain. Perhaps looking in the same spot as the others would be a good start.

http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/daemons/autofs/v4/

comment:3 by bdubbs@…, 18 years ago

Owner: changed from blfs-book@… to bdubbs@…
Status: newassigned

comment:4 by bdubbs@…, 18 years ago

I'm inclined to make this wontfix. I can't find a home page. The patches are very short and do not include an explanation and the index shows autofs-5.0.0_beta1.tar.gz with a date of 2 May 2006.

There are actually several patches not in the book at http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/daemons/autofs/v4/:

  • autofs-4.1.4-auto.smb-cifs.patch 01-May-2006 677
  • autofs-4.1.4-auto_net-escape-hash.patch 02-May-2006 449
  • autofs-4.1.4-configureable-locking.patch 23-Apr-2006 5.6K
  • autofs-4.1.4-ldap-depricated.patch 03-Feb-2006 7.3K
  • autofs-4.1.4-locking-fix-1.patch 16-Nov-2005 2.3K
  • autofs-4.1.4-no-unlink-upstream.patch 16-Oct-2005 1.2K

Only the configureable-locking patch is documented in any way and that just provides an option we probably wouldn't use in the book.

Perhaps we should just wait for 5.0

comment:5 by bdubbs@…, 18 years ago

Priority: highnormal
Severity: majornormal

comment:6 by dnicholson@…, 18 years ago

I don't have a lot of experience with autofs, but it seems that if the developer is providing patches to the current release then they are probably safe (and possibly needed). It doesn't seem that different from the bash/readline patches with the exception that those are much better documented.

comment:7 by bdubbs@…, 18 years ago

Resolution: fixed
Status: assignedclosed

I looked at the autofs-5-beta1 and it will require a 2.6.17 kerenel or a patch to others. It also requires a patch to util-linux. It will not be appropriate for {,B}LFS.

Combined all nine current autofs patches into one consolidated patch and added that to the book at revision 6055.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.