Hi, Jan.
On 08/03/2010 06:41 PM, Jan Schulz wrote:
> Rogério Brito <rbr...@ime.usp.br> wrote on 03.08.2010 17:06:46:
>> OK. I am going to upload a new version of usbmount in some hours. If you
>> happen to be on-line and you have some comments, feel free to e-mail me.
>
> sorry, wasn't there until now and just had a quick look via git diff.
No problems. We can get rid of the bug in the next iteration. I want,
BTW, to speed up the development of usbmount so that we can make it more
robust for the next debian release.
I will be uploading some versions to the experimental version of debian
instead of unstable to not disrupt with the migration to testing.
> Ok, I will add a branch and put in there my changes and try to stage them
> feature after feature.
Thanks. That will make things much faster to integrate.
BTW, I was thinking about your way to handle ntfs with fuse and I don't
think that checking for the presence of ntfs-3g before adding fuseblk to
the unmount code is the technically correct thing to do: the system
administrator may have ntfs-3g for non-removable media (say, when one is
dualbooting the system) and not want it to be used for removable media.
This approach also has the drawback that it isn't general for fuse
filesystems.
The proper fix that I found was to explicitly document that if you are
going to use a fuse filesystem, then you have to put both the name of
the fileystem that you want to use *and* fuseblk on the list of
filesystems that usbmount is supposed to handle.
(In an ideal situation, usbmount should be smart enough to recognize if
a given filesystem is handled by fuse or not and deal internally with
fuseblk, whenever needed).
>> Due to the incompatible changes in the configuration that the system may
>> already have, I choose to defer those changes.
>
> Actually, the default should be pretty similar: instead of getting the
> first usb stick on /media/usb1 you will get it on /media/usb0.
That is the current behavior, isn't it? We already get the first medium
under /media/usb0.
> Up to now I just had a look at the git diff to my branch, but I'm pretty
> sure that the old style /etc/... rules will stay and so overwriting the
> /lib... ones (at least if I remember the udev docs correctly). You need to
> add some cleanup code to deban/{post|pre}inst* -> see my changes to the
> debian/post|pre}{inst|rm}* files and the predepends on dpkg. I'm not sure
> what happens if the old version misses the conffile and so has (maybe?) no
> reference to the checksum. Probably you need to add your own checksum
> checking for the removal (see udev package scripts for some examples)
Oops. I guess that you are indeed right. I may have left some old
conffile hanging out there.
Thanks,
Rogério.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
