On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> But 'fusermount -u /tmp/test' does work, doesn't it?
You're submitting patches to get rid of fusermount, aren't you?
Most users absolutely have no idea what fusermount is and they would
__really__ like to see umount(8) working finally.
S
> > This is an experimental patch for supporing unprivileged mounts and
> > umounts.
>
> User unmount unfortunately still doesn't work if the kernel doesn't have
> the unprivileged mount support but as we discussed this in last July that
> shouldn't be needed for this case.
>
> % mount -t n
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> This is an experimental patch for supporing unprivileged mounts and
> umounts.
User unmount unfortunately still doesn't work if the kernel doesn't have
the unprivileged mount support but as we discussed this in last July that
shouldn't be needed f
> > This is an experimental patch for supporing unprivileged mounts and
> > umounts. The following features are added:
>
> same feedback as last time ... the cap stuff needs to be made optional and
> proper header checks added to configure ...
Later, sure. For now, I'm concentrating on the act
On Wednesday 16 January 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> This is an experimental patch for supporing unprivileged mounts and
> umounts. The following features are added:
same feedback as last time ... the cap stuff needs to be made optional and
proper header checks added to configure ...
> 1) If m
5 matches
Mail list logo
