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

Re: Mounting iso or udf



on Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 09:30:04AM +0200, Julio Merino Vidal (juli@merino.net) wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I have the following directories to mount either an iso cdrom or an
> udf cdrom (only reading). These are:
>   /mnt/cdrom     (for iso)
>   /mnt/cdrom.udf (for udf)
> 
> I've the proper values in /etc/fstab so I can mount them as user, and
> to determine the filesystem type... But... is it there any way that
> the system can determine it for me? So doing mount /cdrom would
> determine the kind of the cd? I don't know if 'auto' will work, because
> the udf cds have an iso part.

If you specify 'auto' for the filesystem type of a mountpoint, Linux
will search through the available filesystem types in finding an
appropriate match.  The key is to specify potential multiple matches in
the order in which you'd prefer they be evaluated.

As an example, for a floppy disk, either vfat or msdos might work with a
FAT filesystem.  You'd want to specify vfat before msdos if you prefer
long filenames.

The search order is specified by either /proc/filesystems, or, if it
exists, /etc/filesystems.  The latter superscedes, so if you need to
munge sort sequence, specify filesystems in preferred order in
/etc/filesystems.

I don't know how iso and udf relate to each other, but if they aren't
compatible, you should be able to use this method.  If either filesystem
is compatible with the other (e.g.:  you can mount an udp as iso or vice
versa), you'll need to try a different trick.

Cheers.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>          http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?             There is no K5 cabal
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/               http://www.kuro5hin.org
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA!    http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire                        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html

Attachment: pgppAllItw92T.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: