On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:12:03PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > i know udev is a better solution *today*, but i'm trying to
> > strictly reproduce what the old system was using, and it wasn't
> > mounting that HD via udev, it was doing it via autofs. so the
> > question remains -- does it make sense to not have a real /mnt
> > directory? i have no idea where it went, but i'm quite sure a
> > normal debian install would create one, no?
>
> autofs might be useful for you. The way it works is, you plug in the
> disk, and access the mount point. When you try to access the mount
> point, it checks for the disk and mounts it. Also, after a time you
> specify (say one minute, for example), for which the disk is not
> accessed, it is automatically unmounted. So, you can safely plug it
> out.
ah, thanks for reminding me how autofs works -- it's not the
plugging in, it's the *attempt* to access contents under that mount
point that automounts it. i'm embarrassed to have forgotten that.
so i tried to list the contents under the appropriate mount point
and, sure enough, there was a pause and the contents appeared.
mystery solved. i was clearly thinking of udev and was thinking that
the mounting would take place when the drive was plugged in, and i
kept checking the output of the "mount" command before i'd even tried
to access anything under the mount point.
my fault. just being dense today.
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry.
Web page: http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
