Description of problem:
Don't know what this means, but I saw this in my log:
Jun 1 11:35:36 nbecker4 automount: open_mount: (mount):cannot open
mount module iso9660 (/usr/lib64/autofs/mount_iso9660.so: cannot open shared
object file: No such file or directory)
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
Does the mount actually fail? If so, what is the next message in the logs, and
what do your maps look like?
Most likely, your map has "-fstype=iso9660", right? Autofs is just checking to
see if there is a specific mount module for this file system type. The warning
Ian, maybe we should log this message at a lower priority.
I have not altered maps from default install.
Yes, there is in /etc/auto.misc:
cd -fstype=iso9660,ro,nosuid,nodev :/dev/cdrom
OK, so long as the mounts are actually working, this is NOTABUG.
I have a similar message on i686 architecture. Message in log file, but mount
succeeds, so pretty harmless.
The message can be suppressed by creating a symbolic link mount_iso9660.so in
the appropriate directory (this is is /usr/lib/autofs on my architecture) to
mount_generic.so in the same directory.
Low priority, but easily "fixed" by adding an extra symbolic link to the rpm.
(In reply to comment #4)
> I have a similar message on i686 architecture. Message in log file, but mount
> succeeds, so pretty harmless.
> The message can be suppressed by creating a symbolic link mount_iso9660.so in
> the appropriate directory (this is is /usr/lib/autofs on my architecture) to
> mount_generic.so in the same directory.
> Low priority, but easily "fixed" by adding an extra symbolic link to the rpm.
Actually, I like that solution.
That way I don't need to supress the message for all
I'll put that in the make install.
Given that /etc/auto.misc ships with an iso9660 example, I guess it's an okay
approach to make the symlink. But where do we draw the line?
Is this not a dup of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215767 ?
This message is a reminder that Fedora 7 is nearing the end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 7. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '7'.
Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 7's end of life.
Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 7 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you.
Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. If possible, it is recommended that you try the newest available Fedora distribution to see if your bug still exists.
Please read the Release Notes for the newest Fedora distribution to make sure it will meet your needs:
The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 7 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on June 13, 2008.
Fedora 7 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not
receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we
are closing this bug.
If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version
of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.
Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.