+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #142998 +++ Description of problem: A new draft of the LDAP automount schema is in the works, and has already been adopted by Sun (in Solaris 9 & 10), presumably among others. One reason the new schema should be supported is that is imposes case-sensitivity on the key name. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): autofs-4.1.3-12 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Set up an LDAP-based automount using the new schema 2. put ldap first on automount line in nsswitch.conf 3. start autofs service Actual results: maps from new schema are not mounted Expected results: all maps mounted Additional info: It currently looks for the key in the cn attribute if using the automount schema; it should be looking for the key in the automountKey attribute. The man page automount(8) points to http://docs.sun.com/source/806-4251-10/mapping.htm for documentation on the schema. This is outdated. There is also a samples/autofs.schema file in the source RPM for automount that uses the outdated schema: objectclass ( 1.3.6.1.1.1.1.13 NAME 'automount' SUP top STRUCTURAL DESC 'An entry in an automounter map' MUST ( cn $ automountInformation $ objectclass ) MAY ( description ) ) The current schema can be found at http://docs.sun.com/db/doc/816-4556/6maort2vf?q=automountKey&a=view and you can see the MUST attributes uses automountKey now: ( nisSchema.2.17 NAME 'automount' SUP top STRUCTURAL DESC 'Automount information' MUST ( automountKey $ automountInformation ) MAY description )
A fix for this was built (at the very latest) into autofs-4.1.3-151.
Is this autofs package available for testing?
The patch was committed in 4.1.3-141. Package version 4.1.3-149 is available for testing from here: http://people.redhat.com/~jmoyer/autofs/rhel4/4.1.3-149/ Testing feedback would be greatly appreciated.
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on the solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2005-657.html