SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

Post by Hannes Reinec » Tue, 19 Sep 1995 04:00:00



Hi all,
i hacked amd (BSD automounter, unofficial patchlevel 102) to make it
work with linux.
With it you can now mount floppies/cdroms etc just by accessing the
dir. It works great provided you were able to get some useful
information from the docs (they are in an interesting state; and the
.texinfo file has some errors which prevents it from displaying all
possible pages :-().
If somebody wants to work with it just drop me a note; at reasonable
request i could put on our ftp-server.

Have fun

Hannes
------
Hannes Reinecke                      |

                                     |  
PGP fingerprint available            |          T.Pratchett: Small Gods
see  'finger' for details            |          

 
 
 

SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

Post by Hannes Reinec » Wed, 20 Sep 1995 04:00:00


okay,okay, bad style;
but public demand presses me:
The hacked amd (+docs) can be found at

ftp://zarquon.mathi.uni-heidelberg.de/pub/Linux/Net/amd-bin.tar.gz

Have fun

Hannes
-------
Hannes Reinecke                      |

                                     |  
PGP fingerprint available            |          T.Pratchett: Small Gods
see  'finger' for details            |          

 
 
 

SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

Post by Winfried Truemp » Wed, 20 Sep 1995 04:00:00


: The hacked amd (+docs) can be found at
[..]

Would be nice if you provide a patch against the original sources so
everyone could build it on her/his own.

BTW, as this additional software, it would be a better style to put them
under "/usr/local".

And it would be nice to have some example maps demonstrating the access of
floppies and cd-roms via amd.

Winfried

 
 
 

SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

Post by Frank Griege » Thu, 21 Sep 1995 04:00:00


Hallo Hannes,

ich waere dankbar fuer Deinen Hack.

Gruss,
        Frank.
--
Frank Grieger, MPIfR, Bonn
Hier stellt sich das MPI vor: <http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/>

 
 
 

SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

Post by Martin Osterman » Fri, 22 Sep 1995 04:00:00




>: Traditionally '/usr/local' used to contain software local to the machine,
>: while /usr contained software to be available on any host.

>Maybe traditionally. But we're LINUX-specific and should follow the
>FS-Standard (tsx-11.mit.edu:/pub/linux/docs/linux-standards/fsstnd).

Well, I just took a look in the 1.2 Version (March `95) of the standard, and I
find nothing that states that additional software _has_ to be put in
/usr/local. Instead, it says (like I did), that it is for the system
administrator to install local software. It _may_ be used for software you want
to avoid to be overwritten during an upgrade process. And /usr/local/sbin is
titled "for local system administration, a description that the automounter
most certainly won't fit in.

The protection of being overwritten is meant for local software, that somebody
which `owns' that machine installed on his own; If you have controll of the
entire system in the upgrade process, e.g. your are the system administrator,
you dont't need that protection.

Quote:>BTW I think it is a bad idea to put additional installed software under /
>or /usr because you may loose them when upgrading the system
>software (e.g. you install a alternative version of SUNs automounter on a
>SUN), the risk is very high for most LINUX-Distributions (as they will come
>with an "amd" by default in future versions).

Well, dont't you see the problem? Distributions will vary, so will your point
of view, what is to be put in /usr/local. Now, do you want any packet of
updated Software too be offered in two ways, either /usr or /usr/local, since
you never know wheather the user owns a distribution that allready contains
that stuff?

Besides, usually you want a system upgrade to replace that software, in case
you installed it system-wide. If you don't want to, you deselect the option in
the installation program, which ought to be possible. I believe the solution to
the updating problem lies in a reliable installation and setup programs.

Martin
--

Bogenstr. 9             http://www.comnets.rwth-aachen.de/~ost
52080 Aachen            Germany

 
 
 

SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

Post by Winfried Truemp » Fri, 22 Sep 1995 04:00:00


: Traditionally '/usr/local' used to contain software local to the machine,
: while /usr contained software to be available on any host.

Maybe traditionally. But we're LINUX-specific and should follow the
FS-Standard (tsx-11.mit.edu:/pub/linux/docs/linux-standards/fsstnd).

BTW I think it is a bad idea to put additional installed software under /
or /usr because you may loose them when upgrading the system
software (e.g. you install a alternative version of SUNs automounter on a
SUN), the risk is very high for most LINUX-Distributions (as they will come
with an "amd" by default in future versions).

Winfried

 
 
 

SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

Post by Winfried Truemp » Sat, 23 Sep 1995 04:00:00


: The protection of being overwritten is meant for local software, that somebody
: which `owns' that machine installed on his own;

Thats the status of amd (with respect to most LINUX-Distributions) and true
for this case.

: If you have controll of the
: entire system in the upgrade process, e.g. your are the system administrator,
: you dont't need that protection.

Why not? Sorry, I don't know what I have installed on my maschine, this is
far too much (estimating 1 GB software). At least I need this protection.

: Well, dont't you see the problem? Distributions will vary, so will your point
: of view, what is to be put in /usr/local. Now, do you want any packet of
: updated Software too be offered in two ways, either /usr or /usr/local, since
: you never know wheather the user owns a distribution that allready contains
: that stuff?

How can I be sure, that the updated version works correct? To make a copy
of everything before overwriting with the new version is not reliable
enough for a production system and uncomfortable.

The solution ist simple: everything which is not part of a distribution
goes into "/usr/local". It doesn't matter which distribution contains "my"
piece of software, I cannot be sure it will conflict with existing
config-files and so on so I put it under /usr/local (but, thats no
guarantee, of course).

: , usually you want a system upgrade to replace that software, in case
: you installed it system-wide. If you don't want to, you deselect the option in
: the installation program, which ought to be possible.

No! Many packages contain more than one binary and I'm not willing to have
a look at all files of a package before installing it.
And maybe I want to test replacement, before using it ...

: I believe the solution to
: the updating problem lies in a reliable installation and setup programs.

Yes, indeed.

Winfried

 
 
 

SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

Post by Albert Cahal » Sat, 23 Sep 1995 04:00:00



>>> If you have controll of the entire system in the upgrade process,
>>> e.g. your are the system administrator, you dont't need that protection.

>> Why not? Sorry, I don't know what I have installed on my maschine, this is
>> far too much (estimating 1 GB software). At least I need this protection.

M> Well, that's your personal problem, and has nothing to do with the FS
M> standard.  Besides, most distribution contain some sort of `installed'
M> directory, which contains file listings of the installed packages to help
M> you keeping track of your installation.

It is a problem many people have.  You have a similar one: you waste
too much time tracking what files you have changed.

Solution: all files in the distribution have a 1970 time stamp.
--

Albert Cahalan

 
 
 

SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

Post by Martin Osterman » Sat, 23 Sep 1995 04:00:00



>M> standard.  Besides, most distribution contain some sort of `installed'
>M> directory, which contains file listings of the installed packages to help
>M> you keeping track of your installation.

>It is a problem many people have.  You have a similar one: you waste
>too much time tracking what files you have changed.

Hm, the first distribution I owned added a `modified' directory to the
`installed' on, which it filled when software got updated. It ought to be
easy to implement a command line option that forces an external package
to be listed under modified, so you can see afterwards which software
didn't belong to the original distribution.

I belive that all that tracking could be done by software rather than me.

Quote:>Solution: all files in the distribution have a 1970 time stamp.

That's a nice one, doesn't sound like Microsoft's idea ("Windows `70" -
I'd like that one, if that wouldn't mean 2070 (argh)).

Martin
--

Bogenstr. 9             http://www.comnets.rwth-aachen.de/~ost
52080 Aachen            Germany

 
 
 

SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

Post by Winfried Truemp » Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:00:00



: >Why not? Sorry, I don't know what I have installed on my maschine, this is
: >far too much (estimating 1 GB software). At least I need this protection.

: Well, that's your personal problem, and has nothing to do with the FS
: standard.

Of course it has. The fsstnd-1.2 says:

  The /usr/local hierachy is for use by the system adminsitrator when
  installing software locally. It needs to be safe from being overwritten
  when the system software is updated.
  [..]
  Note that software plaed in / or /usr may be overwritten by system
  upgrades [..].

So the fsstnd-1.2 grants the protection I need.

: >No! Many packages contain more than one binary and I'm not willing to have
: >a look at all files of a package before installing it.
: >And maybe I want to test replacement, before using it ...
: Again, that holds true with _any_ system update.

When I upgrade my Debain/GNU System, I have a list of what changed from the
previous version (each package).
If I install a XYZ-tar.gz file which is not part of a distribution and
binary-only, I have no clue about the differences against the installed
version - not only regarding to the files, but regarding to the behavior
of the program.
Thats a difference. For my consequences see below.

: In your previous posting, you addressed the issue of complying to standards.
: Now, the standard doesn't support your point of view.

I'm still addressing the complying of standards and the standard support
"my point of view" (sorry for citing it again):

  Loally installed software should be placed whitin /urs/local rather than
  /urs unless it is being installed to replace or upgrade software in /usr.

Would you speak of a "replacement" or an "update" in case of the provided
"amd"-binary? (Of course very recent distributions contain the "amd" but
they provide the same version ...).
At least for Linux, it still has the status of "extra" or "optional"
software.

  Note that software placed in / or /usr may be overwritten by system
  upgrades. [..] For this reason, local software should not be placed
  outside of /usr/local without good reason.

The consequence for me is (but that is not explicitly stated by the
fsstnd): all software that is not a package of a distribution should
go to /usr/local . This is a more comfortable (the only possible) way I can
be sure "this special version" is not overwritten the next time I upgrade
my distribution.

Of course my original suggestion "put the binary under "/usr/local" is no
"real" solution to the problem of "try before you buy" as it may overwrite
existing binaries.
The right way would be to put it under /usr/local/src/amd-.*  and let the
amd-Makefile do the installation. This way I can test it out before it
overwrites _any_ of my already installed binaries.

: I don't care, but please consider this before asking others to switch
: from standard installation to  other places.

Nonsense. If you wouldn't care, you wouldn't post this.

Winfried

 
 
 

SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

Post by Martin Osterman » Mon, 25 Sep 1995 04:00:00



>Of course it has. The fsstnd-1.2 says:

>  The /usr/local hierachy is for use by the system adminsitrator when
>  installing software locally. It needs to be safe from being overwritten
>  when the system software is updated.
>  [..]
>  Note that software plaed in / or /usr may be overwritten by system
>  upgrades [..].

>So the fsstnd-1.2 grants the protection I need.

That's right, but it's not its primary interest to serve this purpose.

Quote:>I'm still addressing the complying of standards and the standard support
>"my point of view" (sorry for citing it again):

>  Loally installed software should be placed whitin /urs/local rather than
>  /urs unless it is being installed to replace or upgrade software in /usr.

Well, you obviously got a different view of local than me. That's what I called
a Linux specific problem in my first posting. Local means a certain machine
within in a net of several machines at a given site. Since many Linux
installations do only contain one machine (e.g. at home), people started to
think, local would mean their specific site. But it ain't that way. Now, at
such a site, you would install some software on some machine. Later the system
administration decides to update their basic software, and she may do so
without knowledge about locally installed machines. True, if you handle
/usr/local your way, that serves its purpose, but that's a secondary effect.

Quote:>: I don't care, but please consider this before asking others to switch
>: from standard installation to  other places.

>Nonsense. If you wouldn't care, you wouldn't post this.

I meant that I don't care how you handle your site, but yes, I do care about
packages I might want to install at my place.

Well, this leads to nothing. Either you agree that local means one machine at a
site, or you dont't. Further argueing doesn't make sense. But maybe some native
English speaking person could shed some light into this?

Bye, Martin
--

Bogenstr. 9             http://www.comnets.rwth-aachen.de/~ost
52080 Aachen            Germany

 
 
 

SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

Post by Winfried Truemp » Tue, 26 Sep 1995 04:00:00


: Well, you obviously got a different view of local than me.

I think the fsstnd makes it more or less clear what to install
under "/usr/local" without defining what the word "local" ("local
software"?) means: software that should not be overwritten with the next
system-upgrade.

Of course you can define what "local" is to you and argue what software you
put under "/usr/local" and why.
Becomes more difficult, if you do it for "etc". Config-files under "et
cetera" ...

: Well, this leads to nothing. Either you agree that local means one machine at a
: site, or you dont't.

As I said, the fsstnd is independent of the meaning of "local".
As far as I remember, this was done to avoid such discussions ... they lead
(and led) to nothing.

: Further argueing doesn't make sense. But maybe some native
: English speaking person could shed some light into this?

I even don't see how a native English speaking person can define a word
with a that generall meaning. "local software" would be easier.
And perhaps this person can shed some light into the fact that all
config-files reside in "etc" ...

Winfried

 
 
 

SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

Post by Martin Osterman » Tue, 26 Sep 1995 04:00:00




>: Well, you obviously got a different view of local than me.

>I think the fsstnd makes it more or less clear what to install
>under "/usr/local" without defining what the word "local" ("local
>software"?) means: software that should not be overwritten with the next
>system-upgrade.

It just states, that software that is installed under /usr/local is not
overwritten by an system upgrade, which is directly caused by the fact, that
the /usr/local tree ought to be empty after main installation of a
distribution. Your argument is not valid, since this is a side-effect.

Besides, you may not want to have that software update in case the distribution
supports it, but other people would enjoy it. And if your point of view would
be correct, it would have been easy for the fsstnd team to recommend that any
package that's not distributed within a distribution should be compiled to fit
/usr/local. They didn't.

Quote:>As I said, the fsstnd is independent of the meaning of "local".
>As far as I remember, this was done to avoid such discussions ... they lead
>(and led) to nothing.

Hmm, I don't see much sense in a `standard' that's afraid of defining things.

Quote:>: Further argueing doesn't make sense. But maybe some native
>: English speaking person could shed some light into this?

>I even don't see how a native English speaking person can define a word
>with a that generall meaning. "local software" would be easier.
>And perhaps this person can shed some light into the fact that all
>config-files reside in "etc" ...

I didn't mean to explain somebody the English word `local' (or `etc') but to
evaluate what the FSSTND could have meant. E.g. it states "The /usr/local
hierachy is for the system administrator to install software locally." Now, you
may argue, that "locally" in this context has nothing to do with the English
word `local', but is just a placeholder for something undefined. I don't think
that sounds like makeing sense, because in this case the sentence becomes
meaningless. However, if "locally" has something to do with `location', we see
that it cannot mean local relative to the global world, as the system
administrator would then install any software at his site locally, thus the
sentence would be meaningless again. This is a strong hint for my position. But
I have too admit that at some places, e.g. within the fsstnd-faq, there are
hints that support your point of view.

On the other hand, /usr/local is nothing the fsstnd created. It has a long
tradition within the Unix comunity, thus not defining it would mean compliance
to the old terms.

Martin

PS.: I won't contribute further to this thread, as I said anything I could
possibly think of - I would like it however, if others would supply arguments
for either cause.
--

Bogenstr. 9             http://www.comnets.rwth-aachen.de/~ost
52080 Aachen            Germany

 
 
 

SUCCESS: automatic floppy/cdrom etc. mount

Post by Kai Hennings » Sun, 01 Oct 1995 04:00:00



Quote:> I didn't mean to explain somebody the English word `local' (or `etc') but to
> evaluate what the FSSTND could have meant. E.g. it states "The /usr/local

What the FSSTND meant, and what was discussed it seems like every month on  
the FSSTND mailing list, is that /usr/local is for software the admin  
grabs from the net and installs, while all the rest is for software that  
comes with the distribution, that is, as one big package.

There is no "the admin must do this" as the FSSTND doesn't address admins.  
It addresses distributors. According to the FSSTND, admins can do whatever  
they want.

However, distributors cannot - they *have* to leave /usr/local alone.

Now, the obvious conclusion is that the *default* installation of a single  
software package - like amd - should be in /usr/local *if* it's expected  
to be installed by individual admins. If it's primarily addressed at  
distribution creators, it should keep out of /usr/local.

And there is one important exception: stuff that "belongs" into other  
places should go there no matter what. (This one is fuzzy by design.)

Quote:> On the other hand, /usr/local is nothing the fsstnd created. It has a long
> tradition within the Unix comunity, thus not defining it would mean
> compliance to the old terms.

That tradition, of course, matches what the FSSTND defines.

None of which have anything to do with host-local versus site-wide. That's  
a completely different issue.

Kai
--

Quote:>>> PFM-Mainz.de distributes mail bombs. <<<


Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/~kai/
 
 
 

1. mounting cdrom and floppy drives, passwords, etc.

I just installed Linux with Redhat 3.0.3, and I know almost nothing
about UNIX/Linux, but I can do most ordinary things..  One thing I'm
having trouble with and need help on is mounting and using my cd-rom and
floppy drives.  I have no idea how to do this. Help?

Also, I have a two user accts.  One is root, which when I set it up, it
asked me for a root password.  On my other account, "kendal", it didn't
ask me for a password.  How do I use this account?  I can't seem to
figure out how to logon as "kendal" or rather change the password for
the account so I can use it.  Please help.

--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
                     ...the comPuter Wizard...

                   http://www.bright.net/~kmontg
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

2. Dell 6300 Server

3. Mount a floppy,Cdrom etc...I'm newbies Help !!!

4. syslog-Probleme mit wu.ftpd und pam

5. Mount a floppy, Cdrom etc...I'm newbies...Help!!!!

6. using cp with -V or -S

7. RedHat 5.1 floppy install not mounting floppy ro CDROM

8. Linux on the MPC860

9. Problem mounting cdrom on CDROM-floppy hot swap Dell laptop

10. mount error: mount only root can mount /dev/cdrom on cdrom

11. Automatic mounting of CDROMs

12. mount /mnt/cdrom ==> mount: the kernel does not recognize /dev/cdrom as a block device