Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #174896 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-19 20:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2016-11-22 17:00 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 55 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
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 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
| From | Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 21:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sFGB4-8ax-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174935 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
Le decadi 30 brumaire, an CCXXV, Joe a écrit : > Conceptually so, but some means of mounting USB sticks do not involve > the user explicitly issuing a mount command. Yet, eventually it involves mount and options. The OP's task now is to find out what system is used to automagically mount USB sticks and how to set the options. Hence the need to know about the options: Tomas' answer was indeed the right one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 15:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sFBrH-3Hl-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174910 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 06:08:51AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/19/2016 2:33 PM, tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: [mount options, fstab] > Those don't address my problem definition. > Having a USB flash drive with a fat16/fat32 file system in hand, on > inserting drive I wish full read/write access. > After all, a FAT filesystem has no concept of ownership. > What's wrong? As others pointed out, they do, and then... they don't. Sorry, I had too narrow a perspective to the problem, You seem to expect your media to be mounted automatically (typically by the desktop environment; that's what DEs do), I have no desktop environment and issue the mount commands whenever I need them; thus the mount options came naturally to me. For Gnome and Gnome-like desktops, I think "pmount" is the mount wrapper which ultimately invokes mount whenever the kernel detects new media (the kernel communicates this event via the udev system, someone (?) picks it up and invokes pmount. Pmount's job is to do the necessary magic as superuser -- more or less). I'm a bit out of my depth wrt desktop environments in general. Based on pmount's man page [1] pmount.allow (which you mentioned in another post) only lets you whitelist devices, not give them any mount options, alas. If I had to do it *and* if I wanted auto-mounting (which I very much not want), I'd hack my way around in /etc/udev/rules.d. Perhaps some desktop environment savvy folks can chime in. regards [1] https://linux.die.net/man/1/pmount - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlgxtLEACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb3YgCeKxYo0ph9Z9za8ErE/8+L1rTC xb4AniWKxGNQfXAVdjsfuvPda27mrGwa =cvUs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 00:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sFmVI-2VE-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174896 |
On Sat 19 Nov 2016 at 12:51:58 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> 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.
No connection to the internet. No connection to the local network. Has a
Debian machine ever been so emasculated? Plus it has nothing to do with
the problem posed.
> When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally unfettered read/write
> access.
> [when logged in as root or *ANY* user ID]
The recent thread "parted is ALMOST suitable" has a post
with the line
Wheezy has /etc/udev/rules.d/91-permissions.rules; Jessie doesn't.
Perhaps if you reread that portion of the thread and ask yourself:
Wheezy has /etc/udev/rules.d/91-permissions.rules; what would happen
if Jessie did too?
> {any one notice a tone of frustration ;/}
No. But we will waited with baited breath for you to report back on the
suggestion.
--
Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 03:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sFpAd-4sJ-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174906 |
On 11/19/2016 5:07 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Sat 19 Nov 2016 at 12:51:58 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> No connection to the internet. No connection to the local network. Has a
> Debian machine ever been so emasculated? Plus it has nothing to do with
> the problem posed.
>
>> When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally unfettered read/write
>> access.
>> [when logged in as root or *ANY* user ID]
>
> The recent thread "parted is ALMOST suitable" has a post
> with the line
>
> Wheezy has /etc/udev/rules.d/91-permissions.rules; Jessie doesn't.
>
> Perhaps if you reread that portion of the thread and ask yourself:
>
> Wheezy has /etc/udev/rules.d/91-permissions.rules; what would happen
> if Jessie did too?
>
>> {any one notice a tone of frustration ;/}
>
> No. But we will waited with baited breath for you to report back on the
> suggestion.
>
*NON SRQUITURE* (s)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 14:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sFAvD-359-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174907 |
On Sat 19 Nov 2016 at 19:51:06 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 11/19/2016 5:07 PM, Brian wrote:
> >On Sat 19 Nov 2016 at 12:51:58 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> >
> >>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.
> >
> >No connection to the internet. No connection to the local network. Has a
> >Debian machine ever been so emasculated? Plus it has nothing to do with
> >the problem posed.
> >
> >>When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally unfettered read/write
> >>access.
> >>[when logged in as root or *ANY* user ID]
> >
> >The recent thread "parted is ALMOST suitable" has a post
> >with the line
> >
> > Wheezy has /etc/udev/rules.d/91-permissions.rules; Jessie doesn't.
> >
> >Perhaps if you reread that portion of the thread and ask yourself:
> >
> > Wheezy has /etc/udev/rules.d/91-permissions.rules; what would happen
> > if Jessie did too?
> >
> >>{any one notice a tone of frustration ;/}
> >
> >No. But we will waited with baited breath for you to report back on the
> >suggestion.
> >
>
>
> *NON SRQUITURE* (s)
Sorry. I took "unfettered read/write" access as a user to mean
partition/format in addition to writing a file to the disk.
Doesn't pmount fit the bill if all you want is to read/write?
--
Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 14:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sFAFk-38n-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174915 |
On 11/20/2016 7:29 AM, Brian wrote:
> On Sat 19 Nov 2016 at 19:51:06 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
>
>> On 11/19/2016 5:07 PM, Brian wrote:
>>> On Sat 19 Nov 2016 at 12:51:58 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No connection to the internet. No connection to the local network. Has a
>>> Debian machine ever been so emasculated? Plus it has nothing to do with
>>> the problem posed.
>>>
>>>> When I plug one into my Debian machine I want totally unfettered read/write
>>>> access.
>>>> [when logged in as root or *ANY* user ID]
>>>
>>> The recent thread "parted is ALMOST suitable" has a post
>>> with the line
>>>
>>> Wheezy has /etc/udev/rules.d/91-permissions.rules; Jessie doesn't.
>>>
>>> Perhaps if you reread that portion of the thread and ask yourself:
>>>
>>> Wheezy has /etc/udev/rules.d/91-permissions.rules; what would happen
>>> if Jessie did too?
>>>
>>>> {any one notice a tone of frustration ;/}
>>>
>>> No. But we will waited with baited breath for you to report back on the
>>> suggestion.
>>>
>>
>>
>> *NON SRQUITURE* (s)
>
> Sorry. I took "unfettered read/write" access as a user to mean
> partition/format in addition to writing a file to the disk.
>
> Doesn't pmount fit the bill if all you want is to read/write?
>
No.
Maybe the problem is D.E. specific? I'm using MATE and thus Caja
as file-manager.
On top menu-bar Places will list identifiers for mountable devices.
Clicking the "identifier" will "mount" the identified device.
It will use information available from /etc/fstab and/or
pmount.allow .
Neither appears to have an entry equivalent to "any FAT
filesystem on plugable device".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 18:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sFEpz-6AO-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174916 |
On Sun 20 Nov 2016 at 07:40:17 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/20/2016 7:29 AM, Brian wrote: > > > >Doesn't pmount fit the bill if all you want is to read/write? > > No. > > Maybe the problem is D.E. specific? I'm using MATE and thus Caja as > file-manager. TBH, the problem as such isn't clear to me. You have USB stick which is formatted FAT16 (say). I'd expect after plugging it into your Debian machine 'lsblk' would show the device and its partitions. Does this happen? Then something like pmount sdg1 would put the mount point as /media/sdg1. Does this happen? > On top menu-bar Places will list identifiers for mountable devices. > Clicking the "identifier" will "mount" the identified device. > It will use information available from /etc/fstab and/or pmount.allow . > Neither appears to have an entry equivalent to "any FAT filesystem on > plugable device". What I'm unclear about is whether this is a question which is about the DE being used. I cannot see the problem being DE specific, either. In GNOME and Xfce the USB device would show up left hand pane of Nautilus. Mounting is by right clicking on it. pmount has nothing to do with the mounting. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 21:30 +0100 |
| Subject | MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] |
| Message-ID | <sFGUq-8ih-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174896 |
On 11/19/2016 12:51 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> 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 ;/}
>
Just now, using the "Places" entry on MATE's menu bar I was able to:
1. mount the specific flash drive that triggered this 'plaint.
2. edit the *SPECIFIC* text file that Pluma would only open as
"READ ONLY".
That had been "straw that broke the camel's back".
This has me wondering if the objectionable reaction was *before*
OR *after* having run
gsettings set org.mate.media-handling automount false
For another project, I was already intending to create a custom
preseed.cfg.
That will allow me to do _functionally_ identical installs [only
physical difference being the target partition of the
installation procedure.].
Is there a standard log file that will record *ALL* operator GUI
*OR* command line actions *AND* the system's response?
I've the time but am short on test procedure design skills.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-20 22:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] |
| Message-ID | <sFHns-8uh-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174938 |
On Sun 20 Nov 2016 at 14:25:16 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote:
> On 11/19/2016 12:51 PM, Richard Owlett wrote:
> >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 ;/}
> >
>
> Just now, using the "Places" entry on MATE's menu bar I was able to:
> 1. mount the specific flash drive that triggered this 'plaint.
> 2. edit the *SPECIFIC* text file that Pluma would only open as "READ ONLY".
> That had been "straw that broke the camel's back".
You are saying you have solved your problem? It no longer exists? It may
not have existed in the first place? You didn't know what you were doing?
Can we now get back to normal service?
Questions; questions. Feel free to ignore them.
> This has me wondering if the objectionable reaction was *before* OR *after*
> having run
> gsettings set org.mate.media-handling automount false
You can wonder as much as you want. Nobody has access to the system you
are on. Wondering will not get anyone anywhere.
> For another project, I was already intending to create a custom preseed.cfg.
> That will allow me to do _functionally_ identical installs [only physical
> difference being the target partition of the installation procedure.].
>
> Is there a standard log file that will record *ALL* operator GUI *OR*
> command line actions *AND* the system's response?
journalctl?
> I've the time but am short on test procedure design skills.
You've got the time but have you got the inclination? (I feel I'm
quoting someone but haven't a clue who it is).
--
Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 13:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] |
| Message-ID | <sFWcO-1f8-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174939 |
On Sunday 20 November 2016 20:54:17 Brian wrote: [snip whole thread which doesn't match subject line] The most frustrating thing about this whole thread, which I had been saving because I have a SANE problem (more later), and SANE problems are often to do with permissions, is that it has nothing *whatsoever* to do with SANE. :-( It is about file permissions or USB key file permissions. It is *not* about SANE. :-(( And it is obviously DE relevant anyway. Lisi Richard - Google "SANE" and "linux"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 14:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] |
| Message-ID | <sFWPv-1GV-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174951 |
On Seg, 21 Nov 2016, Lisi Reisz wrote: > The most frustrating thing about this whole thread, which I had been saving > because I have a SANE problem (more later), and SANE problems are often to do > with permissions, is that it has nothing *whatsoever* to do with SANE. :-( > > It is about file permissions or USB key file permissions. It is *not* about > SANE. :-(( Well, when the OP writes "sane" he does not mean sane the program, but rather that he wants reasonable or rational file permissions (see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sane#Adjective ). It's true that the subject could also be interpreted as "Coercing the permissions of files used by [the program] sane", but nevertheless what he wrote is perfectly correct, so don't berate him for that. -- Eduardo M KALINOWSKI eduardo@kalinowski.com.br
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 14:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] |
| Message-ID | <sFWZb-1K0-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174954 |
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:26:45PM +0000, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > Well, when the OP writes "sane" he does not mean sane the program, but > rather that he wants reasonable or rational file permissions (see > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sane#Adjective ). I think, unfortunately, he actually means "I know what I want, and you should know what I want, and I shouldn't have to explicitly say what I wants, because everyone has the same background and experiences that I do, so you all know what I mean without my saying it, right?" After reading other responses in this massive thread, I come to a few conclusions: 1) He wants auto-mounting of the inserted media, in the manner of Microsoft Windows. I don't know how he expects to handle unmounting. 2) Apparently many Linux desktop environments offer this service, although nobody currently responding to this thread knows how they do this. It's voodoo. 3) My own previous response, coming from a no-desktop-environment viewpoint, was premature. Everything I said was correct only in my own subset of the Debian world, where I use things that I understand and not voodoo desktop environments that nobody understands.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 15:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] |
| Message-ID | <sFXBT-2h6-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174955 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 08:34:42AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:26:45PM +0000, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > > Well, when the OP writes "sane" he does not mean sane the program, but > > rather that he wants reasonable or rational file permissions (see > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sane#Adjective ). > > I think, unfortunately, he actually means "I know what I want, and you > should know what I want, and I shouldn't have to explicitly say what > I wants, because everyone has the same background and experiences that > I do, so you all know what I mean without my saying it, right?" Well paraphrased, albeit a bit biased. I think the discussion has the potential to calibrate "our" expectations too. > After reading other responses in this massive thread, I come to a few > conclusions: > > 1) He wants auto-mounting of the inserted media, in the manner of Microsoft > Windows. I don't know how he expects to handle unmounting. I guess the way (Win)DOS has been doing since times immemorial: pull the thing out and cope with the eventual corruption (yeah, I know Windows has had a "safe eject" functionality for quite a while, but: how much are people using it? and... the cultural roots hadn't it). But most DEs have a button to "eject" the media (which really means unmount: now an USB socket with a mechanical ejector would be really cool :-) > 2) Apparently many Linux desktop environments offer this service, although > nobody currently responding to this thread knows how they do this. > It's voodoo. Well: udisks was mentioned, and also pmount. Slowly we're getting the pieces together. But you're right: DEs are (from my POV) horribly inscrutable. That's one of the reasons I avoid them. Sometimes I've to fix something for a customer (my most important customer being my SO), and I'm invariably horrified at the Rube Goldberg quality of those things. More frustrating is, it seems to be difficult to find somebody who can point you to a rough sketch on how things work. But yes, YMMV. > 3) My own previous response, coming from a no-desktop-environment viewpoint, > was premature. Everything I said was correct only in my own subset > of the Debian world, where I use things that I understand and not > voodoo desktop environments that nobody understands. Yep. Seems we are on the same page there. Still I want to help users, even those using voodoo, whithin my possibilities. regards - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlgzAIkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb1QgCeJD+/s259HrtLj/13ef8K5EOP 490An1WTIdt2uJxDkXe/V45o+Ia11u0g =BXMq -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 16:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] |
| Message-ID | <sFYRk-2Wx-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174958 |
On Monday, November 21, 2016 09:11:21 AM tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 08:34:42AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:26:45PM +0000, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > > 1) He wants auto-mounting of the inserted media, in the manner of > > Microsoft > > > > Windows. I don't know how he expects to handle unmounting. <snip> > > 2) Apparently many Linux desktop environments offer this service, > > although > > > > nobody currently responding to this thread knows how they do this. > > It's voodoo. > > Well: udisks was mentioned, and also pmount. Slowly we're getting the > pieces together. But you're right: DEs are (from my POV) horribly > inscrutable. That's one of the reasons I avoid them. Just adding some information to what I mentioned in an earlier post: On my Wheezy machine, apparently udisks handles the mounting and unmounting of USB sticks (and maybe a lot more--running =udisks --dump= provides information on all my disks, including some health information from SMART. As far as unmounting, if I right click on the device in the left hand pane / column of dolphin, the context menu gives me an option to "Safely remove "... Removable Media"'. On my Jessie system, neither pmount nor udisks is installed, but udisks2 apparently is, and I suspect it is what provides that functionality on Jessie. There does not seem to be a =udisks2 --dump= function. Also, there is not an option to "Safely remove "... Removable Media"' when right clicking on the device in dolphin. I try to make it a practice to run sync twice (and wait for it to return) before removing the pendrive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 17:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] |
| Message-ID | <sFZDH-3yJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174962 |
On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 10:37:33 -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > On my Jessie system, neither pmount nor udisks is installed, but udisks2 > apparently is, and I suspect it is what provides that functionality on Jessie. > There does not seem to be a =udisks2 --dump= function. udisksctl dump -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rhkramer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 17:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] |
| Message-ID | <sFZX3-3Fn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174965 |
On Monday, November 21, 2016 11:25:13 AM Brian wrote: > On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 10:37:33 -0500, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote: > > On my Jessie system, neither pmount nor udisks is installed, but udisks2 > > apparently is, and I suspect it is what provides that functionality on > > Jessie. There does not seem to be a =udisks2 --dump= function. > > udisksctl dump Thanks!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-21 18:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] |
| Message-ID | <sG0zM-47r-25@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174958 |
Disclaimer: I have no idea what the subject of this thread is about. On Mon 21 Nov 2016 at 15:11:21 (+0100), tomas@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 08:34:42AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:26:45PM +0000, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > > > Well, when the OP writes "sane" he does not mean sane the program, but > > > rather that he wants reasonable or rational file permissions (see > > > https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sane#Adjective ). > > > > I think, unfortunately, he actually means "I know what I want, and you > > should know what I want, and I shouldn't have to explicitly say what > > I wants, because everyone has the same background and experiences that > > I do, so you all know what I mean without my saying it, right?" > > Well paraphrased, albeit a bit biased. I think the discussion has the > potential to calibrate "our" expectations too. Well, I know what my expectations are: to see an idiosyncratic problem posed (it SHALL do this and that) and then see people slapped down for not sticking to the precise conditions spelled out or implied by the OP, should they make a suggestion that is probably more useful to others having a similar (but not absolutely identical) problem. The usefulness of many suggestions is limited, of course, by the OPs insistence that a horse and cart is driven through the unix security model merely because the OP never connects anything to the internet (which is insane). > > After reading other responses in this massive thread, I come to a few > > conclusions: > > > > 1) He wants auto-mounting of the inserted media, in the manner of Microsoft > > Windows. I don't know how he expects to handle unmounting. As the OP always declares a desire to learn more, then it might be appropriate to suggest writing a script running under root which watches for any /dev/sd* devices to pop up, creates mount points, appends lines to /etc/fstab (umask = 0, of course) and mounts them. The script could sleep and loop or be run under cron. > I guess the way (Win)DOS has been doing since times immemorial: pull the > thing out and cope with the eventual corruption (yeah, I know Windows > has had a "safe eject" functionality for quite a while, but: how much > are people using it? and... the cultural roots hadn't it). But most DEs > have a button to "eject" the media (which really means unmount: now an > USB socket with a mechanical ejector would be really cool :-) One could always reboot or, in the OP's case, reinstall Debian :) > > 2) Apparently many Linux desktop environments offer this service, although > > nobody currently responding to this thread knows how they do this. > > It's voodoo. > > Well: udisks was mentioned, and also pmount. Slowly we're getting the > pieces together. But you're right: DEs are (from my POV) horribly > inscrutable. That's one of the reasons I avoid them. > > Sometimes I've to fix something for a customer (my most important customer > being my SO), and I'm invariably horrified at the Rube Goldberg quality > of those things. More frustrating is, it seems to be difficult to find > somebody who can point you to a rough sketch on how things work. But yes, YMMV. > > > 3) My own previous response, coming from a no-desktop-environment viewpoint, > > was premature. Everything I said was correct only in my own subset > > of the Debian world, where I use things that I understand and not > > voodoo desktop environments that nobody understands. > > Yep. Seems we are on the same page there. Still I want to help users, even > those using voodoo, whithin my possibilities. I'm not sure why the OP would want DE solutions. If you want to learn how to troubleshoot car engines, you start with an old car, not with one where about the only thing you can do when you lift the bonnet is find that there's just room to plug into the computer diagnostic socket (if that's where they go). Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 16:00 +0100 |
| Subject | [off list] Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] |
| Message-ID | <sGkI9-8uI-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #174974 |
On 11/21/2016 11:15 AM, David Wright wrote:
> Disclaimer: I have no idea what the subject of this thread is about.
<chuckle with tinge of frown ;>
If I was going on only on the responses to my post starting this
sub-thread I would wonder myself ;/
[snip]
>
> Well, I know what my expectations are: to see an idiosyncratic problem
> posed (it SHALL do this and that) and then see people slapped down for
> not sticking to the precise conditions spelled out or implied by the OP,
> should they make a suggestion that is probably more useful to others
> having a similar (but not absolutely identical) problem.
I'm in close to a "no win" situation on this forum.
I have in the past been taken to task for being detailed enough.
When asking a very narrowly focused "How do I do ..." question I
tend to get
one of two responses:
1. "You should not want to do *THAT*."
2. The respondent explicitly ignores inconvenient details of
what I wrote:
An example in this sub-thread is the my supposed interest in
auto-mounting.
To quote myself [1]:
<begin quote>
This has me wondering if the objectionable reaction was *before*
OR *after*
having run
gsettings set org.mate.media-handling automount false
</end quote>
Then all the discussion depending on my presumed desire to
automount :<
> The usefulness of many suggestions is limited, of course, by the OPs
> insistence that a horse and cart is driven through the unix security
> model merely because the OP never connects anything to the internet
> (which is insane).
I do not understand that sentence.
I have a used laptop explicitly purchased to use as "laboratory
device".
It is intentionally isolated as much as possible from any outside
action.
There *EXACTLY* TWO things that can affect what I observe:
1. What is internal to an un-updated copy of Debian 8.6.0
using MATE.
2. I myself do to the system.
I obviously do connect to the internet. JUST not via THAT system ;/
[snip]
>
> As the OP always declares a desire to learn more, then it might be
> appropriate to suggest writing a script running under root which
> watches for any /dev/sd* devices to pop up, creates mount points,
> appends lines to /etc/fstab (umask = 0, of course) and mounts them.
> The script could sleep and loop or be run under cron.
Philosophically I agree, although I've not gone that route on
this problem.
See the next to last sentence of [1].
[snip]
>
> One could always reboot or, in the OP's case, reinstall Debian :)
I do so frequently enough to be accumulating a slew of
preseed.cfg files.
[snip]
>
> I'm not sure why the OP would want DE solutions. If you want to learn
> how to troubleshoot car engines, you start with an old car, not with
> one where about the only thing you can do when you lift the bonnet is
> find that there's just room to plug into the computer diagnostic
> socket (if that's where they go).
Why a DE? For the same reason I've driven cars with automatic
transmissions - it's more convenient. That state of Missouri
recently declared that I MUST only drive cars with automatic
transmissions. Traumatic spinal cord injuries can be a nuisance
<grin>.
Debian Linux is a tool. To use it effectively and conveniently, I
occasionally have to delve into the realm of unintended consequences.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2016/11/msg00838.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-22 19:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [off list] Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] |
| Message-ID | <sGnwl-1Wv-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #175000 |
On Tue 22 Nov 2016 at 08:38:55 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/21/2016 11:15 AM, David Wright wrote: > >Disclaimer: I have no idea what the subject of this thread is about. > > <chuckle with tinge of frown ;> > If I was going on only on the responses to my post starting this sub-thread > I would wonder myself ;/ Forgetting about the subject line, the content of the thread starter is essentially: you want to plug a USB stick into your Debian machine and want totally unfettered read/write access when logged in as user. I'll repeat part of the content of another post: > You have USB stick which is formatted FAT16 (say). I'd expect after > plugging it into your Debian machine 'lsblk' would show the device > and its partitions. Does this happen? > > Then something like > > pmount sdg1 > > would put the mount point as /media/sdg1. Does this happen? Two questions requiring only a "yes" or "no" response. If you do not mind, a third question. Do you now have totally unfettered read/write access to /media/sdg1 as a user? -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-24 19:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [off list] Re: MURPHY'S LAW RULES - was [Re: Coercing sane file permissions -- site specific] |
| Message-ID | <sH6ts-5UY-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #175007 |
On Tue 22 Nov 2016 at 17:51:56 +0000, Brian wrote: > On Tue 22 Nov 2016 at 08:38:55 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > On 11/21/2016 11:15 AM, David Wright wrote: > > >Disclaimer: I have no idea what the subject of this thread is about. > > > > <chuckle with tinge of frown ;> > > If I was going on only on the responses to my post starting this sub-thread > > I would wonder myself ;/ > > Forgetting about the subject line, the content of the thread starter is > essentially: you want to plug a USB stick into your Debian machine and > want totally unfettered read/write access when logged in as user. > > I'll repeat part of the content of another post: > > > You have USB stick which is formatted FAT16 (say). I'd expect after > > plugging it into your Debian machine 'lsblk' would show the device > > and its partitions. Does this happen? > > > > Then something like > > > > pmount sdg1 > > > > would put the mount point as /media/sdg1. Does this happen? > > Two questions requiring only a "yes" or "no" response. > > If you do not mind, a third question. Do you now have totally unfettered > read/write access to /media/sdg1 as a user? The post above was intended to act as an incentive for you to haul yourself out of the hole you have dug for yourself. There is no doubt about the answers to the first two questions being "yes". Any doubt about the third question having "yes" as a response can easily be tested. -- Brian.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web