[arch-general] Switching back to udisk1
Hi, all "http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/udisks2-another-loss-for-linux/" I answered yes to the switch to udisks2 and now the mount point only shows for a split second in Nautilus. The device still shows but now I've lost unmount access via sudo too, my scripts clean up on disconnect so it's not an immediate game stopper but is not right either. I liked the fact it showed exactly where the device was mounted even though it's always /media/usb[0-100]. How easy is it to switch back to udisks1 and what problems can people see for me going forward, if I do?
Am 04.05.2012 11:46, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
"http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/udisks2-another-loss-for-linux/"
I just read this post, and it is what you expect from the ignorant guru: A rant. It is simply general FUD with no concrete examples or anything remotely substantial. Although he might not be wrong, he is nothing more than a troll.
On Fri 04 May 2012 06:16:15 PM ICT, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 04.05.2012 11:46, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
"http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/udisks2-another-loss-for-linux/"
I just read this post, and it is what you expect from the ignorant guru: A rant. It is simply general FUD with no concrete examples or anything remotely substantial. Although he might not be wrong, he is nothing more than a troll.
I like it that way. Without it, no package signing up to now. No flame war anyway. Arch rules :)
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:26 PM, Pham Bao Trung
On Fri 04 May 2012 06:16:15 PM ICT, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 04.05.2012 11:46, schrieb Kevin Chadwick:
"http://igurublog.wordpress.**com/2012/03/11/udisks2-** another-loss-for-linux/http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/udisks2-another-loss-for-linux/ "
I just read this post, and it is what you expect from the ignorant guru: A rant. It is simply general FUD with no concrete examples or anything remotely substantial. Although he might not be wrong, he is nothing more than a troll.
I like it that way. Without it, no package signing up to now. No flame war anyway. Arch rules :)
To the OP: I don't know if you know about the past of package signing and ignorantguru. The result is a general hatred by many arch devs towards ignorantguru, so expect heavily biased opinions about his blog.
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Kevin Chadwick
"http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/udisks2-another-loss-for-linux/"
Please don't take this guy seriously. If you read the post that he is basing his rant on, you'll see that he has completely misunderstood udisks2 (as he seems to get it confused with the Gnome UI that uses it). There might of course still be problems/bugs with udisks2, but hopefully nothing we can't fix :-) -t
On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:19:27 +0200 Tom Gundersen wrote:
Please don't take this guy seriously.
Though he's working on something that seems to fix some of the... oversights shall we say of udisks.
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Kevin Chadwick
On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:19:27 +0200 Tom Gundersen wrote:
Please don't take this guy seriously.
Though he's working on something that seems to fix some of the... oversights shall we say of udisks.
I couldn't find a reference. Do you have a link? As far as I'm aware, the only real complaint against udisks2 is that they don't supply commandline tools with a stable API. However, the dbus api is stable, so it would be trivial for a third party to provide commandline wrappers aronud the dbus stuff, which could then be considered stable. Is this what he is doing? -t
On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:43:03 +0200 Tom Gundersen wrote:
I couldn't find a reference. Do you have a link? As far as I'm aware, the only real complaint against udisks2 is that they don't supply commandline tools with a stable API. However, the dbus api is stable, so it would be trivial for a third party to provide commandline wrappers aronud the dbus stuff, which could then be considered stable. Is this what he is doing?
Sorry, yeah "http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/spacefm-udev/" I sent it straight after realising I'd left it out but it doesn't seem to have come through yet, ahh wrong from address sorry.
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Kevin Chadwick
On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:43:03 +0200 Tom Gundersen wrote:
I couldn't find a reference. Do you have a link? As far as I'm aware, the only real complaint against udisks2 is that they don't supply commandline tools with a stable API. However, the dbus api is stable, so it would be trivial for a third party to provide commandline wrappers aronud the dbus stuff, which could then be considered stable. Is this what he is doing?
Sorry, yeah
"http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/spacefm-udev/"
I sent it straight after realising I'd left it out but it doesn't seem to have come through yet, ahh wrong from address sorry.
So he is reimplementing large parts of udisks because he didn't like that the command line tools does not have a stable api... or did I miss something? Why not just use the dbus api? -t
On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:43:03 +0200 Tom Gundersen wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the only real complaint against udisks2 is that they don't supply commandline tools with a stable API
The docs are attrocious which doesn't help, even the online ones. They seem to be using polkit because it adds fine grained control though this only seems to apply to developers not end users or admins. Of course they could just tie into an RBAC or selinux. Udisks/polkit could certainly take some lessons on ease of use from Grsecurities RBAC with configuration in a single file and that's saying something considering RBACS biggest draw backs are said to be difficulty of implementation. "http://forums.opensuse.org/english/get-technical-help-here/applications/4657..." Anyone know how to permit a certain user to unmount certain mount points or device files without fstab as my method has been broken and the expected methods seem to fail.
On 05/04/2012 12:46 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Hi, all
Hi,
"http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/udisks2-another-loss-for-linux/"
I answered yes to the switch to udisks2 and now the mount point only shows for a split second in Nautilus. The device still shows but now
I'm a bit confused. Where did you answer yes ? I'm just asking because I did not replaced anything with udisks2.
I've lost unmount access via sudo too, my scripts clean up on
Here I'm again confused. Nautilus doesn't require sudo to mount or umount partitions. If you session is authorized in the right way to consolekit and a polkit agent is present, everything works out of the box. Note that it might require root password or your user password(if your username is in wheel group)
disconnect so it's not an immediate game stopper but is not right either. I liked the fact it showed exactly where the device was mounted even though it's always /media/usb[0-100].
How easy is it to switch back to udisks1 and what problems can people see for me going forward, if I do?
Overall, is a miss-configured system. -- Ionuț
On Fri, 04 May 2012 14:59:05 +0300 Ionut Biru wrote:
I'm a bit confused. Where did you answer yes ? I'm just asking because I did not replaced anything with udisks2.
Maybe it asked some other questions completely unrelated (2 I think), it broke immediately after an update including this anyway. [2012-04-25 11:52] installed udisks2 (1.94.0-1)
I've lost unmount access via sudo too, my scripts clean up on
Here I'm again confused. Nautilus doesn't require sudo to mount or umount partitions. If you session is authorized in the right way to consolekit and a polkit agent is present, everything works out of the box.
Note that it might require root password or your user password(if your username is in wheel group)
disconnect so it's not an immediate game stopper but is not right either. I liked the fact it showed exactly where the device was mounted even though it's always /media/usb[0-100].
How easy is it to switch back to udisks1 and what problems can people see for me going forward, if I do?
Overall, is a miss-configured system.
It's a custom configured system with very simple scripts running as a dedicated unpriviledged user (no real reason, just may as well for an average desktop system with one main user) adding the following functionalities that were missing at the time of design atleast. Works with read-only root. Allows custom mount options for any filesystem type. Automounts any usb plugged in with only udev as a dependency to mount locations such as /media/usb[0-100] (both of these greatly reduce typing at a terminal without switching to X11). Cleans up disconnected devices. The only part which is now broken is a wrapper around mount which used sudo and fell back to just mount, don't worry my update scripts keep it in check. I did that because I noticed nautilus provided access to the unmount command via the mount point rather than device display, that has now dissapeared and I'm not sure if that's a bug or intended. Seems silly to remove it to me. udisks doesn't use mount and so I'm forced to look at the mess which is polkit and udisks and how to add explicit custom functionality again which I avoided to save myself time.
On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:38:27 +0100 Kevin Chadwick wrote:
Maybe it asked some other questions completely unrelated (2 I think), it broke immediately after an update including this anyway.
[2012-04-25 11:52] installed udisks2 (1.94.0-1)
Could be this also, maybe I'll check the changelogs, looks like a pretty big jump though. upgraded nautilus (3.2.1-1 -> 3.4.1-1) Anyone know if it's possible/how to kill udisks2 and run udisks1 temporarily to find out?
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Kevin Chadwick
Maybe it asked some other questions completely unrelated (2 I think), it broke immediately after an update including this anyway.
[2012-04-25 11:52] installed udisks2 (1.94.0-1)
Could be this also, maybe I'll check the changelogs, looks like a pretty big jump though.
upgraded nautilus (3.2.1-1 -> 3.4.1-1)
Yes nautilus has gvfs as a dependency which has udisks2 as dep. But nothing seems to prevent you from having both udisks and udisks2 installed at the same time. -- Cédric Girard
On Fri, 4 May 2012 13:38:27 +0100 Kevin Chadwick wrote:
udisks doesn't use mount and so I'm forced to look at the mess which is polkit and udisks
After editing three files (two ineffectual), polkit is atleast unmounting, but before I could look at what that actually means in terms of what can be unmounted, it's asking for modify permissions. I can hit cancel but how dumb. What has eject possibly got to do with modify? Surely a security technologies main requirement is to be transparent!!! from the udisks website. Modify a device (create new filesystem, partitioning, change FS label etc.)
participants (7)
-
Cédric Girard
-
Ionut Biru
-
Kevin Chadwick
-
Pham Bao Trung
-
SanskritFritz
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Tom Gundersen