1 inline comment.
Sent from my iPhone
On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 17:52 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
I have created a wiki page summarizing my design proposal on integrating
SSSD with automounter:
Feedback is much appreciated - a reply to this email would probably work
best. The target of this work is 1.8Thanks for writing this summary, it's excellent.There's not much I have to say about it because it is already quitethorough.One thing I dislike about the discussion, and while I let it pass inbugs and mailing list discussions, I think it is wrong to put it inpublic design documents. The statement "autofs abuses the nsswitch.confconfiguration file" I find a little offensive. autofs uses thatconfiguration file and parses only the "automount" entry using the samesemantic behavior as nss, so the word "abuse" is wrong and a little rudeIMHO.
From googling: define:abuse
|Use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.|
Indeed, what autofs is doing fits this definition to a tee. People reading technical documents generally have thick enough skin that the work abuse is not offensive. Not trying to flame, but I can't comprehend why you see the word abuse as offensive when it (to me) clearly is it. Especially not when it is used in a context fitting the definition. Much like how OpenVZ abuses procfs and IOCTLs, that's just how it is. If they used things as they were meant to be, it would not be abuse.