On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 07:41:03AM +0800, Ian Kent <ik...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > decided that nobody should use symlinks as bind mounts are the
> > future(tm).
>
> >From an upstream POV it was more neglect (on my part) of the
> symlink code in favour of bind mounts.
Not sure why you write this, but it's clearly not true:
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 14:00:42 -0700
[...]
I don't want to perpetuate the symlink thing because it is a terrible
hack in the kernel part of the code, and thus will be removed in autofs
v5.
-hpa
(I hope he forgives me to quote a private mail, but the fact is documented
in debian bug #128171).
That was probably a bit before your time, but the last time I reported
problems with symlinks to upstream I was told (in a long thread) that it
is a hack and will not be supported.
And the result was that the debian maintainer locally applied a patch (in
2006) to make symlinks configurable, for which I was super-thankful.
(Note that there are two sides to this: symlinks for local nfs mounts, and
symlinks for bind mounts, which are not the same, and which confused me for
quite a while).
> But the autofs amd format map support needs them to work properly
> so quite a bit of effort went into making them work as best as I
> could.
Yes, I am very fond of this change in policy, thanks a lot - the effect is
that I can consider autofs again for new deployments, rather than having
had to give up on it :) I also am very fond of amd map support, although
documentation, of course, is sorely lacking.
In any case, since we all seems to agree on the bug part, I think this
part of the disucssion (who stated what policy when) should stay off the
debian bts :)
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / schm...@schmorp.de
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
