On 30/03/15 03:34, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 30.03.2015 um 02:25 schrieb Dmitry Alexandrov:
On 30/03/15 02:41, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 30.03.2015 um 01:21 schrieb Dmitry Alexandrov:
On 30/03/15 01:01, Michael Biebl wrote:
The default policy shipped in Debian allows local desktop users to
mount/
Am 30.03.2015 um 02:25 schrieb Dmitry Alexandrov:
> On 30/03/15 02:41, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> Am 30.03.2015 um 01:21 schrieb Dmitry Alexandrov:
>>> On 30/03/15 01:01, Michael Biebl wrote:
The default policy shipped in Debian allows local desktop users to
mount/umount/format etc removable
On 30/03/15 02:41, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 30.03.2015 um 01:21 schrieb Dmitry Alexandrov:
On 30/03/15 01:01, Michael Biebl wrote:
The default policy shipped in Debian allows local desktop users to
mount/umount/format etc removable media.
‘Format’? How? udisksctl(1) does mot provide such a pos
Am 30.03.2015 um 01:21 schrieb Dmitry Alexandrov:
> On 30/03/15 01:01, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> As I mentioned in previous reply, desktops should use udisks2 to manage
>> storage devices.
>>
>> The default policy shipped in Debian allows local desktop users to
>> mount/umount/format etc removable me
On 30/03/15 01:01, Michael Biebl wrote:
As I mentioned in previous reply, desktops should use udisks2 to manage
storage devices.
The default policy shipped in Debian allows local desktop users to
mount/umount/format etc removable media.
‘Format’? How? udisksctl(1) does mot provide such a possi
Am 29.03.2015 um 23:46 schrieb Troy Benjegerdes:
>
> What exactly the issue with this change? If I am not going to get
> the old behavior of removable USB disks owned by 'floppy', can
> someone at least bother to explain why it was changed, or when
> it will be fixed?
There is nothing to be fix
What exactly the issue with this change? If I am not going to get
the old behavior of removable USB disks owned by 'floppy', can
someone at least bother to explain why it was changed, or when
it will be fixed?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subjec
On 26/02/15 15:13, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 26, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
>
>> To any random user reading this bug (me for example) it looks like you
>> did this change that broke a feature that was working previously without
>> any valid reason and that you don't even care to explain
On Feb 26, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:
> To any random user reading this bug (me for example) it looks like you
> did this change that broke a feature that was working previously without
> any valid reason and that you don't even care to explain it.
I am quite confident that I will be able
On 19/11/14 04:24, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> On Nov 19, Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> May I ask, what exactly did work wrong with removable medias belonging to
>> ‘floppy’ group? To me it is one of conventions that always existed. Was
>> there any bug caused by it?
>
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 07:33:56AM +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> >Use pmount?
>
> ‘pmount(1)’ does not have an ability to label filesystems (at least
> manpage says nothing about that).
Just to add, what solution/work around would there be for eject?
Having removable media automatically grou
Use pmount?
‘pmount(1)’ does not have an ability to label filesystems (at least
manpage says nothing about that).
I do not argue, that it might be nice to have a wrapper around
‘fatlabel(1)’, ‘e2label(1)’, ‘ntfslabel(1)’, etc (and mkfs.* also) that
uses PolicyKit to authorize raw-access to
On Nov 19, Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> wrote:
> May I ask, what exactly did work wrong with removable medias belonging to
> ‘floppy’ group? To me it is one of conventions that always existed. Was
> there any bug caused by it?
Yes, and I have no interest in digging them up from the BTS arc
We have no plans to do this, using groups for external devices was
intentionally removed because it never worked well.
May I ask, what exactly did work wrong with removable medias belonging
to ‘floppy’ group? To me it is one of conventions that always existed.
Was there any bug caused by it?
On Nov 19, Dmitry Alexandrov <321...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Until the ruleset is put back to package (I hope for that), I’d prefer more
We have no plans to do this, using groups for external devices was
intentionally removed because it never worked well.
> obvious workaround on user’s side: just put
Perfect... Now I have to use superuser powers in order to just re-format or
even re-label USB-media, and lose the possibility to exposure¹ live
USB-media
to virtual machine (say, VirtualBox) to boot from it.
And that is (as far as I can see the matter) just because a debian-specific
patch name
Hi,
On 17/06/2014 17:28, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 17.06.2014 17:04, schrieb Yann Amar:
>>
>> Knowing that the default user created during installation is member of
>> secondary groups 'floppy' and 'plugdev', and knowing that making this user a
>> member of the 'disk' group will only lead to secur
Am 17.06.2014 17:04, schrieb Yann Amar:
> Package: udev
> Version: 204-10
> Severity: normal
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> since some Debian specific rules (91-permissions.rules?) have been dropped
> from
> udev, external media (USB, firewire, SD-card) belong to disk group:
>
> user@debian:~$ ls -l
Package: udev
Version: 204-10
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
since some Debian specific rules (91-permissions.rules?) have been dropped from
udev, external media (USB, firewire, SD-card) belong to disk group:
user@debian:~$ ls -l /dev/sd* /dev/mmc*
brw-rw 1 root disk 179, 0 juin 16 23:5
19 matches
Mail list logo
