On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 07:38:26PM +1000, David Findlay wrote: > -----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 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, > > > > Please, no! > > > > Supermount has a lots of problems if you're not alone on your system, > > and most of its features can be done with the more robust automount. > > Why can't it be included *ONLY AS AN OPTION*?
Because I don't want debian developper to spend time on this crap, and even more on explaining the user why this doesn't work as expected. 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. > automount is totally insufficient compared to the supermount patch. > Or is there some other patch that has equal functionality for mounting > removable media immediately when it is put in and then umounting it > when ejected? Thanks, > 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' 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. 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. DindinX -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]