Re: [Cooker] supermount behavior

2000-12-19 Thread Leon Brooks

Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> Is it normal to have supermount on non-removable medias (windows
> partitions), and not on removable zip ?

In the case of the Windows partitions, perhaps supermount simply wishes that
they would be removed? (-:




Re: [Cooker] supermount behavior

2000-12-14 Thread Pixel

Francis Galiegue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

[...]

> > Is it normal to have supermount on non-removable medias (windows
> > partitions), and not on removable zip ?
> > 
> 
> Uhno, this is a bug! supermount should never be employed for non removable
> devices...
> 
> Install bug?

supermount script is chmouel's :)

maybe the devfs notation causing some pb...




[Cooker] supermount behavior

2000-12-14 Thread Guillaume Rousse

just running supermount enable gives me this result :

/mnt/cdrom  /mnt/cdrom  supermount
fs=iso9660,dev=/dev/cdrom,ro,nosuid,noauto,nodev,exec 0 0
/mnt/floppy /mnt/floppy supermount
fs=vfat,dev=/dev/floppy,nosuid,noauto,nodev,unhide 0 0
/mnt/win_c  /mnt/win_c  supermount
fs=vfat,dev=/dev/hda1,umask=0,nosuid,nodev,exec 0 0
/mnt/win_d  /mnt/win_d  supermount
fs=vfat,dev=/dev/hda5,umask=0,nosuid,nodev,exec 0 0
/dev/zip/mnt/zipext2 nosuid,noauto,nodev,user   0 0
...
Is it normal to have supermount on non-removable medias (windows
partitions), and not on removable zip ?
-- 
Guillaume Rousse

Murphy's law : If anything can go wrong, it will.
O'Tool's commentary : Murphy was an optimist.