Bug#298526: ITP: usbmount -- Automatically mount and unmount USB mass storage devices
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name : usbmount
Version : 0.0.5
Upstream Author : Martin Dickopp <martin-deb@zero-based.org>
* URL : http://www.zero-based.org/debian/usbmount.html
* License : GPL
Description : Automatically mount and unmount USB mass storage devices
This package exists already and is available at the upstream author's
website (http://www.zero-based.org/debian). I will merely sponsor it.
I am attaching below the recent post from Martin Dickopp in debian-devel
as well as the reply from Martin Krafft regarding the inclusion of
usbmount in Debian.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-1-686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
* Martin Dickopp <martin-deb@zero-based.org> [2005-03-07 20:34]:
> Hello,
>
> I have written and packaged a script to automatically mount and unmount
> USB mass storage devices (e.g. USB memory pens) when they are plugged in
> or removed. The script is invoked by udev.
>
> To solicit opinions, I posted about it to debian-mentors list last
> October:
>
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2004/10/msg00308.html
>
> In the course of the discussion I got the impression that this way of
> automatically (un)mounting USB devices was not percieved as a good idea.
> In particular, it was pointed out that similar functionality can be
> achieved with the pmount package. Therefore, I didn't try to find a
> sponsor at that time.
>
> However, my package continued to remain useful for me despite the
> existence of pmount, mainly because I don't use a desktop environment.
> pmount develops its real power when used in combination with HAL. As a
> standalone application, pmount requires the user to know the filename of
> the device node, so IMHO it solves a different problem than my package.
> For this reason, I have made the latter available as an unofficial
> package from my webpage:
>
> http://www.zero-based.org/debian/usbmount.html
>
> Today, Rafael Laboissiere has contacted me with an offer to sponsor my
> package. After having read the discussion on debian-mentors (of which
> he had been unaware), he still agreed with me that my package could be
> useful to users who don't use a desktop environment, and he suggested
> that I ask other Debian developers for their opinion.
>
> So, the question is: Should usbmount be included in Debian?
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
>
> PS: Rafael has asked that all mails regarding this topic are CC'ed to
> him, please. M-F-T header set accordingly.
>
>
* martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> [2005-03-08 08:39]:
> also sprach Martin Dickopp <martin-deb@zero-based.org> [2005.03.07.2034 +0100]:
> > In the course of the discussion I got the impression that this way
> > of automatically (un)mounting USB devices was not percieved as
> > a good idea.
>
> Well, it can't be done... that's one thing. You can "remove
> knowledge of the medium from the system once it has been pulled
> out". You cannot unmount it because it will already be removed by
> the time that udev or any other user-space/kernel-space tool learns
> about this. This is a limitation of the USB port. The solution is to
> mount it 'sync', then automatically unmounting could worl
>
> > However, my package continued to remain useful for me despite the
> > existence of pmount, mainly because I don't use a desktop
> > environment. pmount develops its real power when used in
> > combination with HAL. As a standalone application, pmount requires
> > the user to know the filename of the device node, so IMHO it
> > solves a different problem than my package.
>
> You are using udev, so what's the big deal about having to know the
> filename of the device node? Or is
> /dev/little-green-usb-stick-with-red-flashing-light not good?
>
> Also see #286695.
>
> > So, the question is: Should usbmount be included in Debian?
>
> Since you and Rafael deem it useful, I guess that it should. I am
> not opposed to the package at all. I just think that there are other
> ways to do it. But that's just me.
>
Reply to: