Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #174896 > unrolled thread

Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-19 20:00 +0100
    Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-19 21:40 +0100
      Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-20 13:10 +0100
        Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-11-20 13:20 +0100
          Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-20 13:40 +0100
            Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-11-20 13:40 +0100
              Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-20 14:20 +0100
              Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-11-20 15:00 +0100
                Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-20 15:20 +0100
                  Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-11-20 17:50 +0100
                    Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2016-11-20 18:30 +0100
                      Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-20 19:00 +0100
                Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-20 15:20 +0100
                  Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 15:50 +0100
                  Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-11-20 17:20 +0100
                Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-20 15:40 +0100
                Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 18:50 +0100
                Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-11-20 19:50 +0100
                  Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 20:50 +0100
                  Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-11-20 20:50 +0100
                    Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-11-20 21:10 +0100
        Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-20 15:40 +0100
    Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 00:10 +0100
      Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-20 03:00 +0100
        Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 14:40 +0100
          Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-20 14:50 +0100
            Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 18:50 +0100
    MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site  specific] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-20 21:30 +0100
      Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions --  site specific] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-20 22:00 +0100
        Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-21 13:50 +0100
          Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions --  site specific] Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> - 2016-11-21 14:30 +0100
            Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-21 14:40 +0100
              Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions --  site specific] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-21 15:20 +0100
                Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-21 16:40 +0100
                  Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions --  site specific] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 17:30 +0100
                    Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-21 17:50 +0100
                Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions --  site specific] David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 18:30 +0100
                  [off list] Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file  permissions -- site specific] Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-22 16:00 +0100
                    Re: [off list] Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file  permissions -- site specific] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-22 19:00 +0100
                      Re: [off list] Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file  permissions -- site specific] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-24 19:00 +0100
    Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-21 14:20 +0100
      Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-11-21 15:00 +0100
        Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2016-11-21 15:10 +0100
          Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-21 15:20 +0100
            Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 17:40 +0100
              Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2016-11-21 18:20 +0100
                Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 18:40 +0100
                  Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2016-11-21 19:50 +0100
                    Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2016-11-21 20:40 +0100
                      Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific rhkramer@gmail.com - 2016-11-21 21:50 +0100
                    Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-22 16:10 +0100
                      Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-22 16:20 +0100
                        Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-11-22 16:40 +0100
                          Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2016-11-22 17:00 +0100
                          Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-11-22 17:00 +0100

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#174953

On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:51:58PM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives

> When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally unfettered 
> read/write access.
> [when logged in as root or *ANY* user ID]

You can't.

You have to be root to mount one of these things, or to edit the
/etc/fstab file to give an ordinary user the permission to mount one of
these things.

Didn't we tell you this multiple times over the last several weeks?
Yes, we did.

AS ROOT, you can determine the device name (which is dynamically
generated every time you plug it in), and then mount it with some
commands like:

mkdir -p /usb
mount -o uid=richard /dev/sdb1 /usb

Where /dev/sdb1 is the partition you want to mount, and /usb is a
directory you create specifically for the purpose of mounting the
device onto.  And "richard" is the username you want the files to
appear to be owned by.

ONCE IT IS MOUNTED, then user "richard" can read and write to the
files and directories.

To unmount it, you have to be root again.  And then it's simply:

umount /usb

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174956

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 08:18:39AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:51:58PM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
>> I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives
>
>> When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally unfettered
>> read/write access.
>> [when logged in as root or *ANY* user ID]
>
>You can't.
>
>You have to be root to mount one of these things, or to edit the
>/etc/fstab file to give an ordinary user the permission to mount one of
>these things.

Let me restate this another way. Greg said "You have to be root to mount 
...". Another way to say this is "Only root can mount ...".

What's the difference? If you want to mount you can EITHER switch to 
root and issue a mount command as root, OR you can install something 
which runs AS ROOT and mounts the device automatically.

Now, I believe pmount was mentioned in this thread, as was udisks. These 
demons can be considered brokers. You ask them to mount the disk and 
they, running as root, mount the disk and set the appropriate 
permissions to your user.

There is another alternative that I just found, though. With a little 
hacking, you can get udev itself to mount the drive.

https://www.axllent.org/docs/view/auto-mounting-usb-storage/ shows a set 
of udev rules that will mount a vfat or ntfs USB stick to "/media/${File 
System ID or Label}", AND set the user permissions appropriately.

Pay appropriate attention to the line with "ENV{mount_options}=" in, 
though. Use the information elsewhere in this thread to set a sensible 
uid, gid and umask to get the permissions you require.

>
>Didn't we tell you this multiple times over the last several weeks?
>Yes, we did.
>
>AS ROOT, you can determine the device name (which is dynamically
>generated every time you plug it in), and then mount it with some
>commands like:
>
>mkdir -p /usb
>mount -o uid=richard /dev/sdb1 /usb
>
>Where /dev/sdb1 is the partition you want to mount, and /usb is a
>directory you create specifically for the purpose of mounting the
>device onto.  And "richard" is the username you want the files to
>appear to be owned by.
>
>ONCE IT IS MOUNTED, then user "richard" can read and write to the
>files and directories.
>
>To unmount it, you have to be root again.  And then it's simply:
>
>umount /usb
>

-- 
For more information, please reread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174957

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:53:25PM +0000, Darac Marjal wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 08:18:39AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 12:51:58PM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>>I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives
>>
>>>When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally unfettered
>>>read/write access.
>>>[when logged in as root or *ANY* user ID]
>>
>>You can't.
>>
>>You have to be root to mount one of these things, or to edit the
>>/etc/fstab file to give an ordinary user the permission to mount one of
>>these things.
>
>Let me restate this another way. Greg said "You have to be root to 
>mount ...". Another way to say this is "Only root can mount ...".
>
>What's the difference? If you want to mount you can EITHER switch to 
>root and issue a mount command as root, OR you can install something 
>which runs AS ROOT and mounts the device automatically.
>
>Now, I believe pmount was mentioned in this thread, as was udisks. 
>These demons can be considered brokers. You ask them to mount the disk 
>and they, running as root, mount the disk and set the appropriate 
>permissions to your user.
>
>There is another alternative that I just found, though. With a little 
>hacking, you can get udev itself to mount the drive.
>
>https://www.axllent.org/docs/view/auto-mounting-usb-storage/ shows a 
>set of udev rules that will mount a vfat or ntfs USB stick to 
>"/media/${File System ID or Label}", AND set the user permissions 
>appropriately.

Sorry, slight clarification as I read it again. It will mount ANY new 
device matching /dev/sd[a-z][0-9], but for vfat and ntfs drives it adds 
extra options to the mount command.


-- 
For more information, please reread.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174959

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:08:09PM +0000, Darac Marjal wrote:

[...]

> >https://www.axllent.org/docs/view/auto-mounting-usb-storage/ shows
> >a set of udev rules that will mount a vfat or ntfs USB stick to
> >"/media/${File System ID or Label}", AND set the user permissions
> >appropriately.
> 
> Sorry, slight clarification as I read it again. It will mount ANY
> new device matching /dev/sd[a-z][0-9], but for vfat and ntfs drives
> it adds extra options to the mount command.

Thanks for this one. This might be Richard's ultimate solution (albeit
a bit heavy-handed).

regards
- -- t
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlgzAO4ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kYJSwCbB8mliA3lPbc239E3cuu6T7Ou
xv4An3OifvcIlXnPzAEotWFayGqt2kAK
=ObTz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174966

On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 15:13:02 +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:08:09PM +0000, Darac Marjal wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > >https://www.axllent.org/docs/view/auto-mounting-usb-storage/ shows
> > >a set of udev rules that will mount a vfat or ntfs USB stick to
> > >"/media/${File System ID or Label}", AND set the user permissions
> > >appropriately.
> > 
> > Sorry, slight clarification as I read it again. It will mount ANY
> > new device matching /dev/sd[a-z][0-9], but for vfat and ntfs drives
> > it adds extra options to the mount command.
> 
> Thanks for this one. This might be Richard's ultimate solution (albeit
> a bit heavy-handed).

I cannot recollect or find any mention of the OP wanting to automount.
But, if it was required, there isudevil in Debian; no need to search
far and wide for a solution.

-- 

Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174971

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 04:37:50PM +0000, Brian wrote:

[...]

> I cannot recollect or find any mention of the OP wanting to automount.

Not explicitly, sure. The point is, it was implicitly expected, because
for the OP, it's the "normal" thing. It Just Happens.

This sort of thing is what I meant by "recalibrating our expectations":
we are better able to help when we are better able to put ourselves
in the questioner's position.

> But, if it was required, there isudevil in Debian; no need to search
> far and wide for a solution.

Hm? My package search (and apt-file) turn empty on this.

thanks
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlgzLGMACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbBTgCeMxfGHk3zGS92RQu0fvp1H6CZ
HT8An3AasC3MOBz4ShL2auIj0q6JsskD
=Okmw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174976

On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 18:18:27 +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 04:37:50PM +0000, Brian wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > I cannot recollect or find any mention of the OP wanting to automount.
> 
> Not explicitly, sure. The point is, it was implicitly expected, because
> for the OP, it's the "normal" thing. It Just Happens.

I have no idea what the OP's "normal" thing is when it comes to using
his computer. My expections (correct or not) are usually based on what
is said.

> This sort of thing is what I meant by "recalibrating our expectations":
> we are better able to help when we are better able to put ourselves
> in the questioner's position.

Someone deduced "He wants auto-mounting of the inserted media". The
evidence isn't there. Putting one's self in the a user's position is one
thing; putting words into his mouth is another.

> > But, if it was required, there isudevil in Debian; no need to search
> > far and wide for a solution.
> 
> Hm? My package search (and apt-file) turn empty on this.

udevil.

-- 
Brian.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174977

On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:36:19 +0000
Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 18:18:27 +0100, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 04:37:50PM +0000, Brian wrote:
> > 
> > [...]
> >   
> > > I cannot recollect or find any mention of the OP wanting to
> > > automount.  
> > 
> > Not explicitly, sure. The point is, it was implicitly expected,
> > because for the OP, it's the "normal" thing. It Just Happens.  
> 
> I have no idea what the OP's "normal" thing is when it comes to using
> his computer. My expections (correct or not) are usually based on what
> is said.
> 
> > This sort of thing is what I meant by "recalibrating our
> > expectations": we are better able to help when we are better able
> > to put ourselves in the questioner's position.  
> 
> Someone deduced "He wants auto-mounting of the inserted media". The
> evidence isn't there. Putting one's self in the a user's position is
> one thing; putting words into his mouth is another.
> 

The requirement was for a non-root user to mount an arbitrary
FAT-formatted USB stick partition read-write in a predictable place.

One way of achieving this is to monitor /var/log/syslog while plugging
the drive in, observe how the OS identifies the drive, and use this
information to construct a mount statement to be typed into a
command window as root.

Or, since exactly the same procedure is necessary each time, it could
be done by a computer. The computer which the drive had just been
plugged into would be a good choice. Plug in a drive and a large button
appears on the screen, marked 'Mount the drive you just plugged in'.

While this does not actually constitute automounting, I suggest that it
differs by a single mouse click. And actually, I didn't deduce that
automounting was what the OP wanted, I said that it was what *I* had
working. The point was to demonstrate that software existed to do the
job the OP wanted done, even if I didn't see quite what software that
was.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174978

On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 18:43:20 +0000, Joe wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:36:19 +0000
> Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Someone deduced "He wants auto-mounting of the inserted media". The
> > evidence isn't there. Putting one's self in the a user's position is
> > one thing; putting words into his mouth is another.
> 
> The requirement was for a non-root user to mount an arbitrary
> FAT-formatted USB stick partition read-write in a predictable place.

That is a fair summary. (The situation did become a little less clear
later on when Mate was mentioned).

> One way of achieving this is to monitor /var/log/syslog while plugging
> the drive in, observe how the OS identifies the drive, and use this
> information to construct a mount statement to be typed into a
> command window as root.

It's 2016; being root to get information about a plugged-in USB stick
and mount it is unnecessary.

> Or, since exactly the same procedure is necessary each time, it could
> be done by a computer. The computer which the drive had just been
> plugged into would be a good choice. Plug in a drive and a large button
> appears on the screen, marked 'Mount the drive you just plugged in'.
> 
> While this does not actually constitute automounting, I suggest that it
> differs by a single mouse click. And actually, I didn't deduce that
> automounting was what the OP wanted, I said that it was what *I* had
> working. The point was to demonstrate that software existed to do the
> job the OP wanted done, even if I didn't see quite what software that
> was.

The quote I gave (it's in double quotes) was not from one of your posts.
I understood exactly what you said and even responded to your
observation that a plugged in USB stick shows instantly in file managers
with a very short outline of what is involved. I'll flesh it out with
throwing dbus and udev into the mix. The thing about voodoo is that even
a hazy understanding of what it does removes its power.

-- 
Brian. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#174979

On Monday, November 21, 2016 02:39:04 PM Brian wrote:
> On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 18:43:20 +0000, Joe wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:36:19 +0000
> > 
> > Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Someone deduced "He wants auto-mounting of the inserted media". The
> > > evidence isn't there. Putting one's self in the a user's position is
> > > one thing; putting words into his mouth is another.

From the original post:

<quote>
I use fat16 and fat32 formatted USB flash drives for EXACTLY 
ONE purpose.
It is to transfer data to/from a Windows machine.
There is NO [nor will there ever be] a network connection between 
them.

When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally unfettered 
read/write access.
[when logged in as root or ANY user ID]


HOW?
{any one notice a tone of frustration ;/}
</quote>

I don't see any mention of mounting, thus I conclude he doesn't expect to 
mount, i.e., he expects automount.

(When does he expect unfettered access?  When he plugs one into his machine,  
not after he mounts it.)

(Aside: I should probably avoid posting when I have a significant (or maybe 
any) headache...--I apparently get grouchy ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175001

On 11/21/2016 12:43 PM, Joe wrote:
> [snip]
>
> While this does not actually constitute automounting, I suggest that it
> differs by a single mouse click. And actually, I didn't deduce that
> automounting was what the OP wanted,

It is explicitly what I do not want.
I said in 
https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00838.html :
"...
This has me wondering if the objectionable reaction was *before* 
OR *after* having run

      gsettings set org.mate.media-handling automount false"

>  I said that it was what *I* had
> working. The point was to demonstrate that software existed to do the
> job the OP wanted done, even if I didn't see quite what software that
> was.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175002

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:09:01AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 11/21/2016 12:43 PM, Joe wrote:
> >While this does not actually constitute automounting, I suggest that it
> >differs by a single mouse click. And actually, I didn't deduce that
> >automounting was what the OP wanted,
> 
> It is explicitly what I do not want.
> I said in 
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00838.html :
> "...
> This has me wondering if the objectionable reaction was *before* 
> OR *after* having run
> 
>      gsettings set org.mate.media-handling automount false"

OK, this is just way too confusing and convoluted for me.

I was one of the people (there were more than one) who concluded that
you might be looking for an automounting solution.  Perhaps we were
wrong.

But in that case, what *DO* you want?  You've been told repeatedly that
it is not possible to mount a file system without root privileges at
some point in the chain of processes.  Meanwhile, you insist that you
want a solution that allows you to do this as "any user", which is
flatly impossible unless there is some daemon or other intermediary
process to arbitrate the elevated privileges for you.

Intermediary agents to mount file systems on behalf of an end user
generally fall into two categories:

 * Automounters.

 * Desktop environment specific tools.

Yet, you seem to be rejecting both of these.

So, what do you want?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175003

On 11/22/2016 9:16 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:09:01AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
>> On 11/21/2016 12:43 PM, Joe wrote:
>>> While this does not actually constitute automounting, I suggest that it
>>> differs by a single mouse click. And actually, I didn't deduce that
>>> automounting was what the OP wanted,
>>
>> It is explicitly what I do not want.
>> I said in
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00838.html :
>> "...
>> This has me wondering if the objectionable reaction was *before*
>> OR *after* having run
>>
>>       gsettings set org.mate.media-handling automount false"
>
> OK, this is just way too confusing and convoluted for me.

Please note the subject line of 
...debian-user/2016/11/msg00838.html began "MURPHY'S LAW RULES". 
It detailed observations. It noted that system had begun acting 
as desired. It obviously implied that I was about to do some 
testing to find out why. I did after all ASK if there was a 
logging tool that met stated criteria.
>
> [snip]
> Intermediary agents to mount file systems on behalf of an end user
> generally fall into two categories:
>
>   * Automounters.
See above.

>
>   * Desktop environment specific tools.
I have stated that I use Mate D.E.

>
> Yet, you seem to be rejecting both of these.
I never said so.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175004

On Tuesday 22 November 2016 15:38:04 Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 11/22/2016 9:16 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:09:01AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> >> On 11/21/2016 12:43 PM, Joe wrote:
> >>> While this does not actually constitute automounting, I suggest that it
> >>> differs by a single mouse click. And actually, I didn't deduce that
> >>> automounting was what the OP wanted,
> >>
> >> It is explicitly what I do not want.
> >> I said in
> >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00838.html :
> >> "...
> >> This has me wondering if the objectionable reaction was *before*
> >> OR *after* having run
> >>
> >>       gsettings set org.mate.media-handling automount false"
> >
> > OK, this is just way too confusing and convoluted for me.
>
> Please note the subject line of
> ...debian-user/2016/11/msg00838.html began "MURPHY'S LAW RULES".
> It detailed observations. It noted that system had begun acting
> as desired. It obviously implied that I was about to do some
> testing to find out why. I did after all ASK if there was a
> logging tool that met stated criteria.
>
> > [snip]
> > Intermediary agents to mount file systems on behalf of an end user
> > generally fall into two categories:
> >
> >   * Automounters.
>
> See above.
>
> >   * Desktop environment specific tools.
>
> I have stated that I use Mate D.E.
>
> > Yet, you seem to be rejecting both of these.
>
> I never said so.

Richard - much of the problem is that your frame of reference is, by your 
own - boasted?? ;-) - admission somewhat idiosyncratic.  You are somewhat 
difficult to follow. 

Moreover, in spite of your saying that you believe that your emails will help 
other people, 1) they probably don't understand them and 2) even if they 
understand them, the chance that they have exactly the same problem is 
vanishingly small, given that you insist on circumscribing everything in ways 
that most of us find eccentric at best and utterly bizarre at worst.

Lisi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#175005

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 09:38:04AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 11/22/2016 9:16 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> >Intermediary agents to mount file systems on behalf of an end user
> >generally fall into two categories:
> >
> >  * Automounters.
> See above.

Do you mean THIS PART?

> >>>differs by a single mouse click. And actually, I didn't deduce that
> >>>automounting was what the OP wanted,
> >>
> >>It is explicitly what I do not want.

That sure as hell looks like a blanket rejection of automounting
technologies to me.

> >  * Desktop environment specific tools.
> I have stated that I use Mate D.E.

And?

> >Yet, you seem to be rejecting both of these.
> I never said so.

STOP REPLYING WITH NEGATIONS THAT LEAVE ME WITH NO CLUE WHAT YOU WANT

What do you want?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web