On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:38:26PM +1000, David Findlay wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 19:25, David Odin wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:17:38PM +1000, David Findlay wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > Is there a particular reason why Supermount couldn't be included in the
> > > debian unstable kernels as an option? It works brilliantly on Mandrake,
> > > and makes things much easier to use. Thanks,
> > Please, no!
> > Supermount has a lots of problems if you're not alone on your system,
> > and most of its features can be done with the more robust automount.
> Why can't it be included *ONLY AS AN OPTION*?
Because I don't want debian developper to spend time on this crap, and
even more on explaining the user why this doesn't work as expected.
Supermount is a very bad hack, and as the problem of letting a user
'lock' a removable medium, if it is "superunmounted" when still in use.
> automount is totally insufficient compared to the supermount patch.
> Or is there some other patch that has equal functionality for mounting
> removable media immediately when it is put in and then umounting it
> when ejected? Thanks,
Automount will mount the medium as soon as you access it. I fail to see
any use of mounting a medium when it is put, and before it is accessed.
The medium will be unmounted after a 'user defined' time. I've chosen 5
seconds, so at most, I'll have to wait 5 seconds between the last time I
access the medium and the moment I want to eject the medium.
The way of acting is the same as supermount, but it won't let you do
stupid thing such as ejecting a medium in use.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com