Jeff Moyer wrote:
==> Regarding Re: [autofs] [ANNOUNCE] autofs 5.0.0 beta2; Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> adds:
Guillaume.Rousse> Ian Kent wrote:
Hi all,
It's time for an updated beta.
autofs ======
The package can be found at:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/daemons/autofs/v5
It is autofs-5.0.0_beta2.tar.[gz|bz2]
No source rpm is there as it can be produced by using:
rpmbuild -ts autofs-5.0.0_beta2.tar.gz
and the binary rpm by using:
rpmbuild -tb autofs-5.0.0_beta2.tar.gz
See the INSTALL file for information about configure options and kernel
requirements.
Guillaume.Rousse> I couldn't test it really yet, as mandriva development
Guillaume.Rousse> kernel is still 2.6.14, however here are a few remarks:
Guillaume.Rousse> First, stripping binaries by default, especially during
Guillaume.Rousse> compilation, is opposite behaviour of standard
Guillaume.Rousse> autotools-based procedure, where it only occurs if you
Guillaume.Rousse> install with "make stripinstall". I need to have debug
Guillaume.Rousse> symbols present when building a package, as they are
Guillaume.Rousse> automatically for extracting them in a separate debug
Guillaume.Rousse> package. I've found that "make DEBUG=1" would prevent
Guillaume.Rousse> stripping, but it also defines an additional CFLAG with
Guillaume.Rousse> unknown result :/
Try the attached patch. It was made against the 4.1.3 Red Hat packages,
but you get the idea. Basically, "make -DDONTSTRIP."
I can achieve the same result without the patch with make CFLAGS="-O2
-g" LDFLAGS="-g" STRIP=":"
However, I find a bit cumbersome to need top pass arguments both to
configure and to make invocation. And I wanted to point out it was not
standard behaviour.
Guillaume.Rousse> Second, the two attached patches don't apply anymore: -
Guillaume.Rousse> autofs-4.1.4-signal-race-fix.patch seems to refer to
Guillaume.Rousse> parts of automount.c not existing anymore -
Guillaume.Rousse> autofs-4.1.1-get-best-mount.patch refer to a 4 args
Guillaume.Rousse> get_best_mount() function that only has 3 args nowadays
Why would you apply 4.1.x patches to 5.x? *Quite* a lot has changed. I
suggest dropping the patches.
Mainly because I don't know what they are meant for, I'm taking over
package maintainership.
Guillaume.Rousse> Third, the following patches still apply, but I got no
Guillaume.Rousse> clue about their usefulness: -
Guillaume.Rousse> autofs-4.1.0-hesiod-bind.patch
I'll do some digging on this one tomorrow.
Thanks.
Guillaume.Rousse> autofs-4.1.0-loop.patch
Drop this one.
OK.
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
