FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Desktop

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-27-2008, 11:02 PM
Lindsay Haisley
 
Default udev rules question

I have an application I wrote in wxPython which catalogs and retrieves
information about my digital photo CDs. For the cataloging run, this
app expects a digital photo CD to be mounted on /mnt/cdrom. These days
it appears that udev or some other component mounts CDs
on /media/<volume_name>, which is ok, since encourages Gnome to
obediently open a useful window showing the contents of the CD. If I
explicitly put a mountpoint in /etc/fstab then the CD gets mounted there
_instead_ of on /media/<volume_name>, and Gnome ignores the mount. I
want the CD mounted in both places, which I can do manually, but I'd
rather have the OS do it for me.

I used to be able to write udev rules that worked, but it looks as if
Greg KH has been a very busy lad and udev has gotten a lot more complex
of late. I've tried putting the following rule in 10-local.rules or in
98-late_local.rules and reloading the rules files ("udevcontrol
reload_rules"):

KERNEL=="hdc", RUN="/bin/mount -t iso9660 /dev/hdc /mnt/cdrom"

This works if I explicitly run udevstart after a CD has been detected
and mounted on /media/<volume_name>, but _not_ after simply inserting a
CD.

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place here. Maybe this is a hotplug
issue, or a hal/dbus issue. Can anyone tell me how I can get this mount
created and taken down when the CD is ejected?

--
Lindsay Haisley | "In an open world, | PGP public key
FMP Computer Services | who needs Windows | available at
512-259-1190 | or Gates" | http://pubkeys.fmp.com
http://www.fmp.com | |

--
gentoo-desktop@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 01:09 AM
Philip Webb
 
Default udev rules question

080427 Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> I used to be able to write udev rules that worked,
> but it looks as if Greg KH has been a very busy lad
> and udev has gotten a lot more complex of late.

I just had a run-in with Udev after updating to 119 .
It started when I went to back up a small file on diskette as usual
& I was told it couldn't access 'A:'. The cause turned out to be
a change in the permissions for /dev/fd0 to 640 .
After some investigation, incl a search of the Forum,
which had no direct advice, but pointed to a Wiki article,
I was able to write a local rule to set the permission back to 660 .

It does seem a bizarre change: does anyone have any comments ?

--
========================,,======================== ====================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto
--
gentoo-desktop@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 04:00 AM
Lindsay Haisley
 
Default udev rules question

On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 21:09 -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
> 080427 Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> > I used to be able to write udev rules that worked,
> > but it looks as if Greg KH has been a very busy lad
> > and udev has gotten a lot more complex of late.
>
> I just had a run-in with Udev after updating to 119 .
> It started when I went to back up a small file on diskette as usual
> & I was told it couldn't access 'A:'. The cause turned out to be
> a change in the permissions for /dev/fd0 to 640 .
> After some investigation, incl a search of the Forum,
> which had no direct advice, but pointed to a Wiki article,
> I was able to write a local rule to set the permission back to 660 .
>
> It does seem a bizarre change: does anyone have any comments ?

Generally the rule setting permissions on fd0 is in 50-udev.rules, which
can be edited to taste, or you can copy the appropriate rule to
10-local.rules and make the change there. This does seem odd, unless
there's supposed to be some other mechanism in place to change the
permissions dynamically when a floppy is inserted. I'm only running
udev-115-r1 which doesn't have this problem.

--
Lindsay Haisley | "Everything works | PGP public key
FMP Computer Services | if you let it" | available at
512-259-1190 | (The Roadie) | http://pubkeys.fmp.com
http://www.fmp.com | |



--
gentoo-desktop@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 05:14 AM
Philip Webb
 
Default udev rules question

080427 Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-04-27 at 21:09 -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
>> I just had a run-in with Udev after updating to 119 .
>> It started when I went to back up a small file on diskette as usual
>> & I was told it couldn't access 'A:'. The cause turned out to be
>> a change in the permissions for /dev/fd0 to 640 .
>> After some investigation, incl a search of the Forum,
>> which had no direct advice, but pointed to a Wiki article,
>> I was able to write a local rule to set the permission back to 660 .
>> It does seem a bizarre change: does anyone have any comments ?
> Generally the rule setting permissions on fd0 is in 50-udev.rules,
> which can be edited to taste or you can copy the appropriate rule
> to 10-local.rules and make the change there. This does seem odd,
> unless there's supposed to be some other mechanism in place
> to change the permissions dynamically when a floppy is inserted.

Well, there's a big warning at the top of 50-udev not to edit it !
I've never needed to fiddle with Udev rules before,
but I earlier did just what you suggest & all was well again.

> I'm only running udev-115-r1 which doesn't have this problem.

The problem arose after updating to 119 yesterday.
It does seem a strange change to make in the default Udev set-up.

--
========================,,======================== ====================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto
--
gentoo-desktop@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 04:22 PM
Lindsay Haisley
 
Default udev rules question

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 01:14 -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
> The problem arose after updating to 119 yesterday.
> It does seem a strange change to make in the default Udev set-up.

File a bug on it on bugs.gentoo.org. If it makes it past Jakub, as it
probably will, it'll get to the Gentoo udev maintainers. There are
already several bugs filed against changes to the udev rules in 119.

--
Lindsay Haisley | "Everything works | PGP public key
FMP Computer Services | if you let it" | available at
512-259-1190 | (The Roadie) | http://pubkeys.fmp.com
http://www.fmp.com | |



--
gentoo-desktop@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 11:43 PM
Duncan
 
Default udev rules question

Lindsay Haisley <fmouse-gentoo@fmp.com> posted
1209399721.7701.5.camel@localhost.localdomain, excerpted below, on Mon,
28 Apr 2008 11:22:01 -0500:

> File a bug on it on bugs.gentoo.org. If it makes it past Jakub, as it
> probably will, it'll get to the Gentoo udev maintainers. There are
> already several bugs filed against changes to the udev rules in 119.

Umm... last I heard he had "gone walkabout", simply disappearing, and
nobody seemed to know what happened to him. That was days ago and some
of the other devs are trying to fill in, with mixed results as no one has
his knowledge of the area yet. People are worried, as he didn't resign
or anything, just no communication at all, for days.

There's a thread on the dev list asking for clarification of metadata.xml
maintainer's policy as a result. But the thread is I believe a couple
days old now with no more input. Maybe he's back?

I must confess I'm a bit worried too.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

--
gentoo-desktop@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-29-2008, 12:11 AM
Lindsay Haisley
 
Default udev rules question

On Mon, 2008-04-28 at 23:43 +0000, Duncan wrote:
> Umm... last I heard he had "gone walkabout", simply disappearing, and
> nobody seemed to know what happened to him. That was days ago and some
> of the other devs are trying to fill in, with mixed results as no one has
> his knowledge of the area yet. People are worried, as he didn't resign
> or anything, just no communication at all, for days.
>
> There's a thread on the dev list asking for clarification of metadata.xml
> maintainer's policy as a result. But the thread is I believe a couple
> days old now with no more input. Maybe he's back?
>
> I must confess I'm a bit worried too.

That is worrysome. People who are hurt, are incapacitated or who pass
away, just drop offline without a word. I've seen this before. I've
gotten crosswise of Jakub on the bugs database and he runs it as a
pretty tight ship, but it's obvious that he does a _great_ deal of
absolutely necessary work and by and large does a fine job.

Surely someone with the Gentoo Project has physical stats on his
whereabouts such as a phone number and/or snail-mail address.

--
Lindsay Haisley | "In an open world, | PGP public key
FMP Computer Services | who needs Windows | available at
512-259-1190 | or Gates" | http://pubkeys.fmp.com
http://www.fmp.com | |

--
gentoo-desktop@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-29-2008, 11:37 AM
Duncan
 
Default udev rules question

Lindsay Haisley <fmouse-gentoo@fmp.com> posted
1209427899.16574.91.camel@vishnu.fmp.com, excerpted below, on Mon, 28 Apr
2008 19:11:39 -0500:

> That is worrysome. People who are hurt, are incapacitated or who pass
> away, just drop offline without a word. I've seen this before. I've
> gotten crosswise of Jakub on the bugs database and he runs it as a
> pretty tight ship, but it's obvious that he does a _great_ deal of
> absolutely necessary work and by and large does a fine job.

See, that's the thing. There was an event some months ago when he
"retired" for a few days, and Gentoo was able to carry on, but it wasn't
without pain, and there was some noise to it. There was also great
rejoicing when he returned -- I do think he needed the break as he seemed
a bit less brittle on his return, and I KNOW everybody else was very
relieved that he returned.

But this time he just dropped off the face of the Internet, from what the
postings said. That's really not like him, and others had already posted
their worry by the time I read about it.

Hopefully, it's something simple like that he suffered hardware problems
and just couldn't login until he got them fixed! Certainly rather that
than the unspeakable possibilities I'm sure are running thru many
people's minds currently.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

--
gentoo-desktop@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:16 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org