; -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John W. M.
> Stevens
> Sent: 07 February 2006 7:11pm
> To: Rob Blomquist
> Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: USB flash drive not automounting or mounting
>
>
> On
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 08:45:58PM -0800, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> On Monday 06 February 2006 9:58 am, Andrew Sackville-West so eloquently
> stated:
>
> > Now, I am not sure which of these would be used for a flash drive, but I
> > can tell that a few won't be
>
> look in /etc/udev/rules.d/050
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:45:58 -0800
Rob Blomquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday 06 February 2006 9:58 am, Andrew Sackville-West so eloquently
> stated:
>
> > Now, I am not sure which of these would be used for a flash drive, but I
> > can tell that a few won't be
>
> look in /etc/ude
On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 08:45:58PM -0800, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> Nothing here leads me to believe this is how the automounting happens. I also
> looked at my Ubuntu udev scripts and rules and saw nothing there.
No one told you that this was how the device got mounted. These are the
udev rules
On Monday 06 February 2006 9:58 am, Andrew Sackville-West so eloquently
stated:
> Now, I am not sure which of these would be used for a flash drive, but I
> can tell that a few won't be
look in /etc/udev/rules.d/050_hal* and see what that says. That is the rule
that creates sd* devices.
OK
On Sunday 05 February 2006 9:36 pm, Marc Shapiro so eloquently stated:
Brendan wrote:
> On Sunday 05 February 2006 18:13, Marc Wilson wrote:
>>IMHO automount is an incredibly broken behavior. Gnome users swear that
>>it's desirable, though. Your mileage may vary.
>
> Why do you think that?
>with
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:06:19 -0800
Rob Blomquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 05 February 2006 7:50 pm, Andrew Sackville-West so eloquently
> stated:
> On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:42:09 -0700
>
>
> > >Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
> > > /dev/sdb1 *
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 05:47:45PM -0800, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> I have been quite confused with the changes to USB that the 2.6 kernel gives.
What changes are those? The 2.6 kernel doesn't make any significant
changes to the presentation of USB in this area.
What you're more likely seeing is pe
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 09:06:19PM -0800, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> On Sunday 05 February 2006 7:50 pm, Andrew Sackville-West so eloquently
> stated:
> > Maybe because the error message from mount is correct? That
> > "special device /dev/sdb1 does not exist?"
>
> >do you have udev rules to create
Marc Shapiro wrote:
[...]
I have a system with a fresh Debian install with KDE. It wants to
automount things. I'm hoping I can correct this behaviour. Here are
the problems that I am having:
Data CDs will automount, but sometimes take so long to do so that I
click on the icon again. I then
Brendan wrote:
On Sunday 05 February 2006 18:13, Marc Wilson wrote:
IMHO automount is an incredibly broken behavior. Gnome users swear that
it's desirable, though. Your mileage may vary.
Why do you think that?
I have a system with a fresh Debian install with KDE. It wants to
automount
On Sunday 05 February 2006 7:50 pm, Andrew Sackville-West so eloquently
stated:
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:42:09 -0700
> >Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
> > /dev/sdb1 * 1 952 2436966 FAT16
> >
> > Ah, so it is vfat on sdb1! no sweat!
> >
On Sunday 05 February 2006 18:13, Marc Wilson wrote:
> IMHO automount is an incredibly broken behavior. Gnome users swear that
> it's desirable, though. Your mileage may vary.
Why do you think that?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Conta
On Sun, 05 Feb 2006 20:42:09 -0700
"John W. M. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 17:47 -0800, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> > On Sunday 05 February 2006 3:13 pm, Marc Wilson so eloquently stated:
> > > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 01:30:01PM -0800, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> > >
> > >
>
On Sun, 2006-02-05 at 17:47 -0800, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> On Sunday 05 February 2006 3:13 pm, Marc Wilson so eloquently stated:
> > On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 01:30:01PM -0800, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Ok from all this, I wonder if the drive is corrupt. It is connected. Why
> > > can't
On Sunday 05 February 2006 3:13 pm, Marc Wilson so eloquently stated:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 01:30:01PM -0800, Rob Blomquist wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ok from all this, I wonder if the drive is corrupt. It is connected. Why
> > can't I manually mount it?
>
> Because you're trying to mount the block devi
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 15:13:46 -0800
Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 01:30:01PM -0800, Rob Blomquist wrote:
>
>
>
> > Ok from all this, I wonder if the drive is corrupt. It is connected. Why
> > can't
> > I manually mount it?
>
> Because you're trying to mount t
On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 01:30:01PM -0800, Rob Blomquist wrote:
> Ok from all this, I wonder if the drive is corrupt. It is connected. Why
> can't
> I manually mount it?
Because you're trying to mount the block device, rather than a partition on
it. Example:
rei $ sudo fdisk -l /dev/sdf
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 13:30:01 -0800
Rob Blomquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I asked this earlier, and several asked for more information about what is
> going or not going on on my system. I am trying to figure out if something is
> missing, or if something needs manual configuration on my syst
19 matches
Mail list logo
