[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: iPod mount: Re: hfs+ fs with linux - only ro after some time error



Hi,

Nori Heikkinen writes:

> i just got a new iPod, and have been happily mounting and unmounting
> it on my debian box (x86) with the mount command all morning.

[confusion galore]

Let me try to clear up things a bit.

1. Regarding device nodes.  You are accessing the iPod either via
   Firewire or via USB.  No matter what, it will appear to the Linux
   kernel as a SCSI disk.  All SCSI disks known to the Linux kernel
   are numbered /dev/sda, /dev/sdb and so on in the order they are
   found.  If you are not sure where to find your iPod, check the file
   /proc/scsi/scsi, it contains information on all connected devices.
   Also, check the dmesg output to see what was found last and how it
   was named.

2. Regarding partitions.  /dev/sda is the whole iPod, complete with
   partition table, firmware, data, everything.  Do not attempt to
   mount it unless you have very good reasons to do so.  Instead,
   mount the data partition only.  Since you have a Mac iPod, it is
   called /dev/sda3.  /dev/sda1 holds the partition table (yes, the
   partition table is in its own partition), /dev/sda2 contains the
   firmware.

3. Regarding read-write mounts.  Support for HFS+ exists both in the
   Linux kernel itself ('mount -t hfsplus') and in the userland tools
   packaged as hfsplus ('hpmount').  The former is evolving fast, the
   latter is as good as dead upstream.  For these very different
   reasons, both should be used with the same large amount of caution.
   Do not mount your iPod read-write unless you absolutely have to.

4. Regarding HFS+ on the iPod.  Given the state of HFS+ support in
   Linux, you may be better off converting your iPod to FAT.  Even
   though this will turn it into a so-called Windows iPod, it will
   remain usable from Mac OS X.

Regards, Jens.

-- 
J'qbpbe, le m'en fquz pe j'qbpbe!
Le veux aimeb et mqubib panz je pézqbpbe je djuz tqtaj!



Reply to: