Description of problem: When autofs parses /etc/nsswitch.conf, the lexer only recognizes as sources values which are given in an enumerated list. This is wrong because the nsswitch interface is designed to allow for arbitrarily-named modules to be used. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 5.0.3-11 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install nss_db, and add "db" to the list of sources for any item in /etc/nsswitch.conf, so that nss_db will be used. 2. Restart autofs. Actual results: syntax error in nsswitch config near [ no opening bracket ] Expected results: No error, autofs starts up.
Ian, this has now come up for the second time. Can we simply ignore sources we don't support?
FWIW, that's the behavior I'd prefer. BTW, I was wrong about the how-to-reproduce it part: apparently only the "automount:" setting matters.
(In reply to comment #1) > Ian, this has now come up for the second time. Can we simply ignore sources we > don't support? Yes, I'm going to have to work a bit harder on this. The problem being that our yacc parser is written to recognize a list of known sources. I haven't looked yet but I didn't generalize it last time so there's probably a reason for that.
(In reply to comment #2) > FWIW, that's the behavior I'd prefer. BTW, I was wrong about the > how-to-reproduce it part: apparently only the "automount:" setting matters. Understood. Yes, the "automount:" entry is the only bit autofs looks at.
Created attachment 305082 [details] Patch to ignore nsswitch sources that aren't supported
Could you please check this to see if the patch functions correctly. The built packages are available at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/packages/autofs/5.0.3/14.
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Yes, 5.0.3-14 seems to work correctly. Thanks!
sounds like a regression test is in order.
(In reply to comment #8) > Yes, 5.0.3-14 seems to work correctly. Thanks! Oh boy, I missed this. Thanks nalin, I'll merge this upstream and push it out to F-9.
(In reply to comment #9) > sounds like a regression test is in order. Yep, and a RHEL bug to go with it. Ian
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 9. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.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 '9'. 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 9'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 9 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 to the applicable version. 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. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 9 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2009-07-10. Fedora 9 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.