Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-07-02
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: kernel-patch-2.4-supermount-ng
Version : 1.2.7a
Upstream Author : Andrey Borzenkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stephen Tweedie ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
nautilus or gmc to work well with automount... will they
> work with supermount? I'd be willing to try this stuff if so...
Sort of. Last I tried, Nautilus still wants to do the
mounting/unmounting thing, which it shouldn't do. I think Mandrake had
some patches for cleaning it
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.
I cannot get nautilus or gmc to work well with automount... will they
work with supermount? I'd be willin
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 11:27:15PM +0200, David Odin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 05:12:26PM -0400, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 16:54, David Odin wrote:
> > > Well, the main problem I have with supermount and not have with
> > > automount is t
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 05:12:26PM -0400, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 16:54, David Odin wrote:
> > Well, the main problem I have with supermount and not have with
> > automount is the following:
> > I'm a CS teacher, and the linux distributi
On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 16:54, David Odin wrote:
> Well, the main problem I have with supermount and not have with
> automount is the following:
> I'm a CS teacher, and the linux distribution in the computer room is
> mandrake. And, very often, a student use supermount to mou
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:54:48PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 12:06:23PM +0200, David Odin wrote:
>
> > > The way of acting is the same as supermount, but it won't let
Le lun 15/04/2002 à 12:32, David Findlay a écrit :
> Well can the debconf for automount please make it easy to configure it that
> way? The default config doesn't do anything like it, and the documentation is
> not clear on setting it up. Everyone runs around saying they want to make
> Debian e
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 12:06:23PM +0200, David Odin wrote:
> > 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.
Depending on what "use" means it
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 12:06:23PM +0200, David Odin wrote:
> 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.
This flaw is notable, unfortunately. However, this is a matter
On Mon, 2002-04-15 at 05:17, 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 muc
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, David Findlay wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:31, T.Pospisek's MailLists wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, David Findlay wrote:
> > > Well can the debconf for automount please make it easy to configure it
> > > that way? The default config doesn't do anything like it, and the
> >
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, David Findlay wrote:
> Well can the debconf for automount please make it easy to configure it that
> way? The default config doesn't do anything like it, and the documentation is
> not clear on setting it up. Everyone runs around saying they want to make
> Debian easy for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 20:06, David Odin wrote:
> 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' tim
SSAGE-
> > > 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,
> >
> &
-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
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
> m
-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,
David
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v
I'm currently compiling it in and will be playing around with it for a
> while. I think it would be a good idea if people here could heavily
> test the supermount patch.
> Thank you, P. *8^)
I've been using Stephen's supermount patches si
19 matches
Mail list logo
