Followup to: <[email protected]>
By author: [email protected] (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
--
<[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt