Automount question

[blu-Z8efaSeK1ezqlBn2x/YWAg at public.gmane.org (Edward Ned Harvey)]

> From: discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org [mailto:discuss-bounces-mNDKBlG2WHs at public.gmane.org] On
> Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
>
> Specifically because direct automount is do *darn* much better than the
> old
> way, you're describing.

I guess I didn't describe what direct automount is, or why it's better.  So
here goes:

In the old style automount, you had a directory which was managed by
automount client, and upon access, it would attempt to mount the
subdirectories.  But in direct automount, that concept has gone away.  A
direct automount is much more analogous to an automatic fstab.  You specify
any local directory explicitly mounts directly any remote directory.  There
are several advantages:

You have flexibility to remap subdirectories, such as the OP requested he'd
like to do.
You already know the directory name.  (I always found it annoying, when I
"ls /mnts" I saw nothing in the old automount, and then I would "ls
/mnts/something" and I'd see the contents of something.  So there was no way
to know the list of all the options of what could possibly be accessed in
the directory /mnts)

It's mostly about the flexibility.  Any local to any remote, arbitrary
mappings.