Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu) by vger.rutgers.edu via listexpand id ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 05:08:31 -0400 Received: by vger.rutgers.edu id ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 05:08:22 -0400 Received: from enterprise.cistron.net ([195.64.68.33]:4700 "EHLO enterprise.cistron.net") by vger.rutgers.edu with ESMTP id ; Wed, 2 Aug 2000 05:08:10 -0400 From: miquels@cistron.nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg) Subject: Re: RLIM_INFINITY inconsistency between archs Date: 2 Aug 2000 09:28:58 GMT Organization: Cistron Internet Services B.V. Message-ID: <8m8pkq$p1r$1@enterprise.cistron.net> References: <7iw6kYsXw-B@khms.westfalen.de> <20000801023027.23228.qmail@t1.ctrl-c.liu.se> <20000801185531.B2091@thune.mrc-home.org> <8m7pci$fbt$1@cesium.transmeta.com> X-Trace: enterprise.cistron.net 965208538 25659 195.64.65.200 (2 Aug 2000 09:28:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@cistron.nl To: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu Sender: owner-linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu Content-Length: 1100 Lines: 23 In article >8m7pci$fbt$1@cesium.transmeta.com>, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >Followup to: <20000801185531.B2091@thune.mrc-home.org> >By author: Mike Castle >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/