Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 24.09.2012 09:47, Jamie Heilman wrote:
> []
> > Understood. Thanks for chasing it, whatever the outcome.
>
> No, thank _you_ for chasing this bug! -- it was you who
> did all the work.
>
> I prepared a (preliminary) new release, 5.0.7-1, at
> http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/
On 24.09.2012 09:47, Jamie Heilman wrote:
[]
> Understood. Thanks for chasing it, whatever the outcome.
No, thank _you_ for chasing this bug! -- it was you who
did all the work.
I prepared a (preliminary) new release, 5.0.7-1, at
http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/tmp/autofs/ - it is based on
5.0.7 which
Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 24.09.2012 05:38, Jamie Heilman wrote:
> > I'm currious, do you think there's any chance this issue will be
> > resolved for the Wheezy release? While using the "fstype=nfs4"
> > workaround is doable, it'd be nice not to introduce the regression of
> > "vers=4" failing
On 24.09.2012 05:38, Jamie Heilman wrote:
> I'm currious, do you think there's any chance this issue will be
> resolved for the Wheezy release? While using the "fstype=nfs4"
> workaround is doable, it'd be nice not to introduce the regression of
> "vers=4" failing for a stable release.
Well. The
I'm currious, do you think there's any chance this issue will be
resolved for the Wheezy release? While using the "fstype=nfs4"
workaround is doable, it'd be nice not to introduce the regression of
"vers=4" failing for a stable release.
--
Jamie Heilman http://audible.transie
Jamie Heilman wrote:
> ... and here's a quick respin of patch 2 that doesn't introduce new
> compiler warnings. :-P Sorry, I shoulda checked that more carefully.
Sigh. Third time's the charm, I hope. previous 0002 patch broke if
MOUNT_NFS_DEFAULT_PROTOCOL=4 but port wasn't given and the serve
Jamie Heilman wrote:
> Jamie Heilman wrote:
> > Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > > On 04.06.2012 08:13, Jamie Heilman wrote:
> > > > Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > > >> Overall, the code quality is very very low, I'm not sure
> > > >> it is possible to maintain this package without very
> > > >> serious work
Jamie Heilman wrote:
> Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > On 04.06.2012 08:13, Jamie Heilman wrote:
> > > Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > >> Overall, the code quality is very very low, I'm not sure
> > >> it is possible to maintain this package without very
> > >> serious work with upstream first.
> > >
> > >
On 08.06.2012 22:39, Jamie Heilman wrote:
> Michael Tokarev wrote:
[]
>> On the other hand, -vers=4 does NOT work, because automount only checks
>> for -fstype and -port, but not -vers. This is a defect in autofs, but
>> it is a small defect. I think it can be made to work with -vers=4 too
>> the
Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 04.06.2012 08:13, Jamie Heilman wrote:
> > Michael Tokarev wrote:
> >> Overall, the code quality is very very low, I'm not sure
> >> it is possible to maintain this package without very
> >> serious work with upstream first.
> >
> > I took a stab at a slightly less anno
On 04.06.2012 08:13, Jamie Heilman wrote:
> Michael Tokarev wrote:
>> Overall, the code quality is very very low, I'm not sure
>> it is possible to maintain this package without very
>> serious work with upstream first.
>
> I took a stab at a slightly less annoying workaround, and found that
> wit
04.06.2012 05:34, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> Michael, please excuse me for adding my portion of rant.
>
> Generally speaking assumptions and changes to package' logic outside
> of packaging updates would be safer to avoid when we should release
> ASAP due to freeze time.
>
> Even to me the change in
Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Overall, the code quality is very very low, I'm not sure
> it is possible to maintain this package without very
> serious work with upstream first.
I took a stab at a slightly less annoying workaround, and found that
with 5.0.6-2 using a map of "jamie -fstype=nfs4 canarsie
Michael, please excuse me for adding my portion of rant.
Generally speaking assumptions and changes to package' logic outside
of packaging updates would be safer to avoid when we should release
ASAP due to freeze time.
Even to me the change in package behaviour you introduced was unexpected.
(ano
Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Note again that NFSv4 does not work with autofs still --
> namely, its /net map still requires portmapper. And
> note - also again - that even without turning on this
> "HAVE_NFS" thing, it were working just by a chance.
I'm not disputing that showmount relies on rpc, and
On 03.06.2012 23:38, Jamie Heilman wrote:
[]
>> For now I suggest to actually run rpcbind on the server, this
>> issue needs to be dealt with upstream. Neither version of the
>> code is right.
>
> Hell no. The entire reason I bothered with v4 is because it gets rid
> of the external portmapper r
Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 03.06.2012 18:39, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > On 03.06.2012 17:31, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> > []
> >> Does it work if you enable portmapper/rpcbind on the server?
> >> (It is enabled here)
> >
> > I just verified - and indeed, with no rpcbind running on the
> > server, a
On 03.06.2012 18:39, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 03.06.2012 17:31, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> []
>> Does it work if you enable portmapper/rpcbind on the server?
>> (It is enabled here)
>
> I just verified - and indeed, with no rpcbind running on the
> server, automount does not work anymore, ie, it
18 matches
Mail list logo
