Re: [fuse-devel] Question about setting up an environment like GoboLinux.

[Stef B. <st...@gm...>]

2010/9/28 Nikolaus Rath <Nik...@ra...>:
> Stef Bon <ste...@pu...> writes:
>> 2010/9/26 Nikolaus Rath <Nik...@pu...>:
>>> On 09/25/2010 06:10 PM, Stef Bon wrote:
>>>>>> When an USB disk is inserted, a directory where this usb device should
>>>>>> be created, the device should be mounted. That's possible, but your fs
>>>>>> does not stop at the mountpoint. I had major problems here.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be thinking of something else. Your fs just has to call
>>>>> /sbin/mount. That's it. Nothing else to do. The kernel will take care of
>>>>> the rest.
>>>>
>>>> Please try it. It is not that easy. What's the mountpoint for example??
>>>> A FUSE fs cannot mount other filesystem's to itself.You seem to overlook this.
>>>> TRY it, it's not easy. You seem not to understand.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid that I don't really feel like trying it. I know that this
>>> procedure will work, and I already gave an explanation of why it has to
>>> work.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen any argument from you of why it should not work. Since
>>> you insist that this is the case, I can only assume that you have
>>> constructed an example that did not work.
>>>
>>> If you want to find out why your example did not work, feel free to post
>>> it. If you insist that it's impossible, that's fine with me too. But I
>>> am not going to spend my time constructing my own example just to
>>> convince you.
>>
>> Well sure if you want to.
>>
>> But you seem to be very convinced. I've said multiple times
>> that from within a fuse fs it's impossible to mount another filesystem
>> to it.
>
> Indeed you did. But saying it more often does not make it any more true
> or any more convincing. *Why* do you think it is impossible? Let me
> repeat: a fuse file system is a program like any other, so it can call
> /sbin/mount just like your shell. Nothing is imposing any special
> restrictions on your fs. There is no reason at all of why it might not
> be able to mount additional file systems.
>
>
>> - special handling of .directory files. The fuse fs is able to
>> intercept .directory files, which have special meaning for the desktop
>> environment as you know.
>
> So *how* does your fs handle .directory files? I really don't see
> what sort of special treatment they would need...
>
>
>> Having it mounted
>> then will create some damage probably.  With the automounter you can
>> fast unmounting when not used. And why trying to invent in a fuse fs
>> (namely the mounting and unmounting) if there is already an excellent
>> program for it. You've mentioned that's possible by just creating
>> another thread in the FUSE fs, and earlier you've mentioned that my fs
>> (or construction) is too complicated, the costs are tooo high against
>> the benefits. Don't you think this is getting complicated, and it's
>> way to much effort trying to program this if there is already an
>> excellent program autofs for this??
>
> Not quite. Unmounting an unused file system is really simple. Using the
> automounter just because it's able to unmount is a bit like setting up a
> supercomputer in your living room for heating it. It seems to me that
> most of your file system is centered around "fixing" the mountpoint used
> by the automounter. All this wouldn't be necessary if you mount the file
> systems where you want to have them in the first place.
>
>> I'm planning to go futher. I'm want to experiment to mount my fs at
>> the users home directory, while it's contents is still avaiable. This
>> is possible, thorugh the nonempty mount option, and bind mounting the
>> homedirectory at another directory first.
>> Using that directory again as underlying fs for the fuse fs, makes the
>> home again available, only the fuse fs is an extra layer around it.
>> But now it's possible to offer the user direct directories in the
>> home, in stead of in a subdirectory.
>
> You *do* *not* *need* to add another layer on top of the home directory
> just to mount some additional file systems in there.

Not the very best. I stop answering your remarks and questions. I 've
tried my best to convince you why I've build the construction and the
fs, and yes you do not NEED an FUSE fs to mount other filesystem, and
I'm not going to repeat my self here, I've pointed out point by point
why I'm building this construction and you still think otherwise. We
do not have to agree here about everything right!

If you think it's that easy to program a FUSE fs which mounts other
filesystem to itself, well show it' But you don't that, while it's
very important for you. You want ME to convince YOU.

I'm really fed upo with you and will not answer anything of you.

Stef Bon


Accepting differences makes live nicer. Those who can't live in a grey world.