Thoughts about HAL, Ivman and Pmount.

Sabin Iacob iacobs at
Fri Oct 28 04:19:52 PDT 2005

On 10/28/05, Jonatan Liljedahl wrote:
> Not very nice, you're right. So probably it would be better still to
> don't automount anything at all, but only create the mountpoints and
> then let the users mount/unmount it and the first user who mounts it
> will own it.

That was my approach when I wrote a small app to add icons for new devices
to ROX panels, and it still seems to me the best one. Since mounting was
done anyway on demand (I used some replacement for fstab-sync back then),
not mounting anything by default was perfectly acceptable.

Getting a bit off-topic here: a way to tell ROX a directory is a mount-point
(or, better, a mount-point container) would be a great idea. I have been
thinking for a while how to do it, and the nicest thing I could think of
were extended attributes: ROX sees an attribute telling it that a directory
is a mountpoint container and the path to the program used to mount things
inside i; and the mount points would contain an attribute telling it the hal
UDI. Simple and beautiful :D

P.S. Sorry if this message got to the wrong address, Gmail seems to have
something against the mailing list software at<>

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build
bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce
bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." -- Rich Cook
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the hal mailing list