Re: [Cooker] status of supermount?

2001-09-23 Thread Juan Quintela

> "matthew" == Matthew D Pitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

matthew> Guys,
matthew> I was planning to start a total re-write of supermount ( when i have the
matthew> time ) and would like to know what type of features would be desired in it.
matthew> I will send a list of my plans for Supermount 2 when I get it started.

Hi
you can contact me if you want about that project, current
supermount patches work again (that means that today I fixed the last
known bug).  I plan to change quite a bit of things now that
upermount works (i.e. I can do big changes) and I have time for the
next Mandarke release:

- Make supermount locking compresible, just now it uses several things
  to mean the same, making races too easy (in the other way you can
  think that there is _no_ locking.
- Make it works with zips nicely (notice that this means change the
  zip driver, supermount is good enough as it is, but zips want to
  _have_ the unit locked while opened :(
- try to implement a way to detect if there is a disk in the unit
  before trying to mount, just now we try to mount the disk to know if
  there is something in the unit.

That is just from the top of my memory in a Sunday night after haven't
had too many sleep.

Later, Juan.



-- 
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they 
are different -- Larry McVoy




Re: [Cooker] status of supermount?

2001-09-23 Thread Juan Quintela

> "joal" == Joal Heagney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

HI

joal> The major hassle that I tend to come across with supermount is that when
joal> I try to supermount an ide zip drive as vfat (because it mounts on the
joal> fourth partition, I believe) once I move onto the zip drive, even if I
joal> move off it, it won't let me eject the disk. On cdrom and floppy it's
joal> shweet. Individual control over which fdisk entry to enable|disable
joal> would be nice.

try use hdX=ide-scsi, it will make supermount work, but this driver is
_not_ nice when you try to mount and there is nothing there (too
verbose).  Will be next try after 8.1 release, change ide-floppy to
allow unlock of the disk while mounted or making ide-scsi less verbose
in that situation.

joal> E.g. 
joal> supermount enable /mnt/cdrom
joal> supermount disable /mnt/floppy

I take notice ta change that.

Later, Juan.

-- 
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they 
are different -- Larry McVoy




Re: [Cooker] status of supermount?

2001-09-23 Thread Juan Quintela

> "borsenkow" == Borsenkow Andrej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> > I remember having reported some problems in new supermount
borsenkow> incarnation
>> > ... what is the status? Was something fixed in the meantime?
>> >
>> > -andrej
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> hmm.  i believe juan may still be frantically chewing away on rw, but
borsenkow> ro
>> seems ... eh...well...
>> each will have his own opinions.

borsenkow> What opinions? I get "busy VFS inode, destructing" every time I shutdown
borsenkow> system with supermounted drive. I just say that first version (-18mdk?)
borsenkow> was way too buggy and it was very easy to block access to your drive
borsenkow> until reboot (and do not forget total KDE freeze trying to access
borsenkow> supermounted drive). I have not seen anything supermount-related in
borsenkow> changelogs so far so I assume it is not fixed.

All known/reported bugs are fixed in -26mdk.
And there has been fixes in the meanwhile, for the rest, if there was
no patch, was because the fix was not ready :(

* Sun Sep 23 2001 Juan Quintela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2.4.8-26mdk
- new supermount patch, this time fixes the oops.
- stat fixes.

* Sat Sep 22 2001 Juan Quintela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2.4.8-25mdk
- new supermount patch.

* Mon Sep 17 2001 Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2.4.8-24mdk
- supermount fixes (a lot of them, this time should work). (P306). (juan)

* Wed Sep 12 2001 Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2.4.8-23mdk
- supermount upgrade (P305) (juan)


Later, Juan.


-- 
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they 
are different -- Larry McVoy




Re: [Cooker] status of supermount?

2001-09-15 Thread guran


> "Matthew D. Pitts" wrote:
> > Guys,
> > I was planning to start a total re-write of supermount ( when i have the
> > time ) and would like to know what type of features would be desired in
> > it. I will send a list of my plans for Supermount 2 when I get it
> > started.

I clicked on the desktop icon of my zip drive, old 100 MB on parallell port, 
and up pops konqueror with an added window saying "unsupported action list 
Dir"

Here is from the konqueror panel:
http://navigation.realnames.com/resolver.dll?action=navigation&realname=file%3A&charset=iso-8859-1&providerid=180&fallbackuri=http%3A//www.google.com/search%3Fq%3D%5C1

regards
guran
-- 
Mandrake Linux beta Cooker kernel-2.4.8-22 vers:1.578




Re: [Cooker] status of supermount?

2001-09-15 Thread Guillaume Rousse

Ainsi parlait Joal Heagney :
> "Matthew D. Pitts" wrote:
> > Guys,
> > I was planning to start a total re-write of supermount ( when i have the
> > time ) and would like to know what type of features would be desired in
> > it. I will send a list of my plans for Supermount 2 when I get it
> > started.
>
> The major hassle that I tend to come across with supermount is that when
> I try to supermount an ide zip drive as vfat (because it mounts on the
> fourth partition, I believe) once I move onto the zip drive, even if I
> move off it, it won't let me eject the disk. On cdrom and floppy it's
> shweet. Individual control over which fdisk entry to enable|disable
> would be nice.
By default, supermount command only output a modified /etc/fstab. Just grab 
the line you want and edit the original file.
-- 
Guillaume Rousse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPG key http://lis.snv.jussieu.fr/~rousse/gpgkey.html




Re: [Cooker] status of supermount?

2001-09-15 Thread Matthew D. Pitts

Guys,
I was planning to start a total re-write of supermount ( when i have the
time ) and would like to know what type of features would be desired in it.
I will send a list of my plans for Supermount 2 when I get it started.

Matthew D. Pitts

- Original Message -
From: "Borsenkow Andrej" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:33 AM
Subject: RE: [Cooker] status of supermount?


>
> > > I remember having reported some problems in new supermount
> incarnation
> > > ... what is the status? Was something fixed in the meantime?
> > >
> > > -andrej
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > hmm.  i believe juan may still be frantically chewing away on rw, but
> ro
> > seems ... eh...well...
> > each will have his own opinions.
>
> What opinions? I get "busy VFS inode, destructing" every time I shutdown
> system with supermounted drive. I just say that first version (-18mdk?)
> was way too buggy and it was very easy to block access to your drive
> until reboot (and do not forget total KDE freeze trying to access
> supermounted drive). I have not seen anything supermount-related in
> changelogs so far so I assume it is not fixed.
>
> -andrej
>





RE: [Cooker] status of supermount?

2001-09-15 Thread Borsenkow Andrej


> > I remember having reported some problems in new supermount
incarnation
> > ... what is the status? Was something fixed in the meantime?
> >
> > -andrej
> >
> >
> >
> 
> hmm.  i believe juan may still be frantically chewing away on rw, but
ro
> seems ... eh...well...
> each will have his own opinions.

What opinions? I get "busy VFS inode, destructing" every time I shutdown
system with supermounted drive. I just say that first version (-18mdk?)
was way too buggy and it was very easy to block access to your drive
until reboot (and do not forget total KDE freeze trying to access
supermounted drive). I have not seen anything supermount-related in
changelogs so far so I assume it is not fixed.

-andrej




Re: [Cooker] status of supermount?

2001-09-14 Thread Blue Lizard

Borsenkow Andrej wrote:
> I remember having reported some problems in new supermount incarnation
> ... what is the status? Was something fixed in the meantime? 
> 
> -andrej
> 
> 
> 

hmm.  i believe juan may still be frantically chewing away on rw, but ro 
seems ... eh...well...
each will have his own opinions.