[patch] progress with autofs.

[David Zeuthen]

On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 12:27 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 02:37:52AM +0200, David Zeuthen wrote:
> 
> > So, what I'm thinking is that this is just a third way to enforce policy
> > using hal. Hence, why I like the separation. Also, the changes to hald
> > seems to be pretty minimalistic, if any, given your message below, is
> > this correct? It would be good to have a configure option to turn this
> > on and off.
> 
> it's going to have to be a bit more than a configure option: certain
> disks will need to be excluded from the autofs system, and those
> should go into /etc/fstab instead.
> 

Why is that? Of course if a volume is already listed in /etc/fstab it
shouldn't be autofs managed

> which is another reason why it might not be sensible to split fstab-sync
> into a separate version doing autofs.
> 
> maybe there are other ways to do this:
> 
> 	two programs reading the same conf file, one which says "all
> 	entries in this conf file, i place in /etc/fstab" and the other
> 	"all entries NOT in this conf file , i place in /etc/auto.hal".
> 
> 	yuk!
> 
> at some point i will think about how do do changes in behaviour of
> HAL depending on whether a volume was managed by fstab-sync in autofs
> mode or fstab-sy in non-autofs mode.
> 
> at the moment, i've put it as a top-level /etc/hal/hald.conf option.
> 

I really don't think stuff like this belongs in the hald configuration
file since it's policy. Ideally hald shouldn't know about whether
something is autofs managed or not. However I do think it's sensible to
tell hald "dont trust the /etc/mtab file for this volume" (property
volume.is_autofs_managed in my last mail). But that's about it.

David


_______________________________________________
hal mailing list
hal at freedesktop.org
http://freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/hal