Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 18:09:33 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 11/11/2016 à 17:24, Brian a écrit : > > > >As the manual says: > > > > CACHE_FILE= > > Overrides the standard location of the cache file. This setting > > can be overridden by the environment variable BLKID_FILE. Default > >

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

Le 11/11/2016 à 17:24, Brian a écrit : As the manual says: CACHE_FILE= Overrides the standard location of the cache file. This setting can be overridden by the environment variable BLKID_FILE. Default is /run/blkid/blkid.tab, or /etc/blkid.tab on systems without a /run directory.

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Fri 11 Nov 2016 at 15:38:07 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 08/11/2016 à 00:54, Brian a écrit : > > > >When blkid is run as root it creates the file > >/run/blkid/blkid.tab. A user running blkid only gets to see the contents > >of blkid.tab. > > That does not appear to be completely

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

Le 08/11/2016 à 00:54, Brian a écrit : When blkid is run as root it creates the file /run/blkid/blkid.tab. A user running blkid only gets to see the contents of blkid.tab. That does not appear to be completely correct. If I run blkid as a standard user after plugging a USB drive, it lists

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 04:56:36PM -0700, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > Brian writes: [...] > >> Hopefully. But that's not because bash checks that (as parted is). > >> It's because the permissions on the device file are set right! >

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

Brian writes: > On Wed 09 Nov 2016 at 11:27:11 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:12:13AM +, Brian wrote: >> > >> > That gives "-bash: /dev/sda2: Permission denied" for me with a fixed >> > disk. It's the same for a removable disk. The

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 08:48:04PM +, Brian wrote: > On Wed 09 Nov 2016 at 21:35:14 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > > Hm. Layering error. > > Sorry. I'm unfamiliar with this term ("layering errors") Sorry. Was meaning to say "layering

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Wed 09 Nov 2016 at 21:35:14 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:38:01PM +, Brian wrote: > > On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 17:54:41 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > > >> > Futzing with partitions is the admin's job. > > > >> Could be, but it's not (g)parted's job to

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:38:01PM +, Brian wrote: > On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 17:54:41 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > >> > Futzing with partitions is the admin's job. > > >> Could be, but it's not (g)parted's job to enforce these kinds of rules:

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 06:29:32PM +, Brian wrote: [...] > Raw disk access to a device the user does not own *is* sacred. YES! And the OS takes care of that part! > Access to a device the user does own is up to the user. Again:

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Wed 09 Nov 2016 at 11:27:11 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:12:13AM +, Brian wrote: > > On Wed 09 Nov 2016 at 09:48:01 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 08:39:51PM +, Brian wrote: > > > > On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 14:41:45 -0500,

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Wed 09 Nov 2016 at 08:10:37 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/9/2016 4:27 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > >[*SNIP*] > > > >BTW it's very easy to fool the application itself (and this might be > >a perverse "solution" to Richard's problem). Just run gparted under > >fakeroot. It won't convey

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Wed 09 Nov 2016 at 09:48:01 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 08:39:51PM +, Brian wrote: > > On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 14:41:45 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > > >>> *HOWEVER* parted requires root privileges. That is not acceptable. > > > >>> Suggestions? >

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 17:54:41 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >> > Futzing with partitions is the admin's job. > >> Could be, but it's not (g)parted's job to enforce these kinds of rules: > >> that's what Unix permissions (and Linux's capabilities) are for. > >> It's OK to add a warning and

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Wed 09 Nov 2016 at 12:01:10 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:45:52AM +, Brian wrote: > > [...] > > > I hope cfdisk is an acceptable alternative to gparted, which is not on > > my system. 'fakeroot /sbin/cfdisk' gives "cfdisk: cannot open /dev/sda: > >

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Tuesday 08 November 2016 20:49:08 Stefan Monnier wrote: > > Feel free to weight in ;-) > >^^^ > No idea where this `t` came from, > > > Stefan There's a gremlin in your keyboard too, is there? ;-) Lisi

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:45:52AM +, Brian wrote: [...] > I hope cfdisk is an acceptable alternative to gparted, which is not on > my system. 'fakeroot /sbin/cfdisk' gives "cfdisk: cannot open /dev/sda: > Permission denied". We are talking

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Wed 09 Nov 2016 at 11:27:11 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:12:13AM +, Brian wrote: > > On Wed 09 Nov 2016 at 09:48:01 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 08:39:51PM +, Brian wrote: > > > > On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 14:41:45 -0500,

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 10:12:13AM +, Brian wrote: > On Wed 09 Nov 2016 at 09:48:01 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 08:39:51PM +, Brian wrote: > > > On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 14:41:45 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Wed 09 Nov 2016 at 09:48:01 +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 08:39:51PM +, Brian wrote: > > On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 14:41:45 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > > > >>> *HOWEVER* parted requires root privileges. That is not acceptable. > > > >>> Suggestions? >

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 08:39:51PM +, Brian wrote: > On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 14:41:45 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > > > >>> *HOWEVER* parted requires root privileges. That is not acceptable. > > >>> Suggestions? > > >>> TIA > > >

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 02:41:45PM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >>> *HOWEVER* parted requires root privileges. That is not acceptable. > >>> Suggestions? > >>> TIA > > Futzing with partitions is the admin's job. > > Could be, but it's

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

>> > Futzing with partitions is the admin's job. >> Could be, but it's not (g)parted's job to enforce these kinds of rules: >> that's what Unix permissions (and Linux's capabilities) are for. >> It's OK to add a warning and prompt the user to make sure he really >> means to do that, but there's no

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

> Feel free to weight in ;-) ^^^ No idea where this `t` came from, Stefan

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 14:41:45 -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote: > >>> *HOWEVER* parted requires root privileges. That is not acceptable. > >>> Suggestions? > >>> TIA > > Futzing with partitions is the admin's job. > > Could be, but it's not (g)parted's job to enforce these kinds of

Re: Correction - Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 05:19:15 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/8/2016 4:58 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: > >[snip] > > > >Actually I now have two options, "udevadm info" and "/sbin/blkid". > >>From Brian's comment on bug #776905, in future releases "blkid" > >may be an option. > > I'll have to

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 06:40:26 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 04:58:05 (-0600), Richard Owlett wrote: > > On 11/7/2016 8:36 PM, Michael Lange wrote: > [...] > > >I think that the command Brian suggested: > > > > > > udevadm info --query=property --name=/dev/sda1 | grep

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

> On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: >> *HOWEVER* parted requires root privileges. That is not acceptable. >> Suggestions? >> TIA Futzing with partitions is the admin's job. fdisk also want's root (or sudo). You want some user poking around in the

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Tue 08 Nov 2016 at 04:58:05 (-0600), Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/7/2016 8:36 PM, Michael Lange wrote: [...] > >I think that the command Brian suggested: > > > > udevadm info --query=property --name=/dev/sda1 | grep ID_FS_TYPE > > > >used with every partition that is returned by > > > > cat

Correction - Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On 11/8/2016 4:58 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: [snip] Actually I now have two options, "udevadm info" and "/sbin/blkid". From Brian's comment on bug #776905, in future releases "blkid" may be an option. I'll have to modify that. Brian has stated in another sub-thread: ... When blkid is run

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On 11/7/2016 5:54 PM, Brian wrote: On Mon 07 Nov 2016 at 21:07:45 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: Le 07/11/2016 à 15:18, Richard Owlett a écrit : tomas@rasputin:~$ ls -al /dev/sd* brw-rw 1 root disk 8, 0 Nov 7 09:06 /dev/sda brw-rw 1 root disk 8, 1 Nov 7 09:06 /dev/sda1

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On 11/7/2016 8:36 PM, Michael Lange wrote: On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 23:48:53 + Lisi Reisz wrote: Speaking as a Jessie user, changing to root and using lsblk -f is quicker and easier! Sure, but the OP said that's not an option. I think that the command Brian suggested:

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 07:54:23PM +0300, Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 04:05:17PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 09:35:32AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > I started writing that in my previous

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 23:48:53 + Lisi Reisz wrote: > > Speaking as a Jessie user, changing to root and using lsblk -f is > quicker and easier! Sure, but the OP said that's not an option. I think that the command Brian suggested: udevadm info --query=property

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Mon 07 Nov 2016 at 23:48:53 +, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Monday 07 November 2016 19:15:50 Brian wrote: > > On Mon 07 Nov 2016 at 18:42:37 +0100, Felipe Salvador wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 04:09:24PM +, Brian wrote: > > > > I get the same as you on Debian 8.6. On unstable the

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Mon 07 Nov 2016 at 21:07:45 +0100, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > Le 07/11/2016 à 15:18, Richard Owlett a écrit : > >>> > >>> tomas@rasputin:~$ ls -al /dev/sd* > >>> brw-rw 1 root disk 8, 0 Nov 7 09:06 /dev/sda > >>> brw-rw 1 root disk 8, 1 Nov 7 09:06 /dev/sda1 > >>> brw-rw 1

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Monday 07 November 2016 19:15:50 Brian wrote: > On Mon 07 Nov 2016 at 18:42:37 +0100, Felipe Salvador wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 04:09:24PM +, Brian wrote: > > > I get the same as you on Debian 8.6. On unstable the command 'lsblk -f' > > > shows all the fields populated. I wonder

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

Le 07/11/2016 à 15:18, Richard Owlett a écrit : tomas@rasputin:~$ ls -al /dev/sd* brw-rw 1 root disk 8, 0 Nov 7 09:06 /dev/sda brw-rw 1 root disk 8, 1 Nov 7 09:06 /dev/sda1 brw-rw 1 root disk 8, 2 Nov 7 09:06 /dev/sda2 brw-rw 1 root disk 8, 5 Nov 7 09:06

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Mon 07 Nov 2016 at 18:42:37 +0100, Felipe Salvador wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 04:09:24PM +, Brian wrote: > > > > I get the same as you on Debian 8.6. On unstable the command 'lsblk -f' > > shows all the fields populated. I wonder what Felipe Salvador is using? > > ~$

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 07:59:56AM -0700, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > Felipe Salvador writes: > > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:37:53AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > >> On 11/7/2016 6:20 AM, Felipe Salvador wrote: > >> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 04:09:24PM +, Brian wrote: > On Mon 07 Nov 2016 at 09:27:47 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > On 11/7/2016 8:19 AM, Felipe Salvador wrote: > > > > > >I don't see this behaviour > > > > > >~$ lsblk -fr > > >NAME FSTYPE LABEL UUID MOUNTPOINT > > >sda > > >sda1 ext2 ...

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

[snip] file -s /dev/sda{1..5} | awk '{print $5}' I was just about to post a very similar followup when I discovered a gaping security hole (really, about as big as it gets) on my machine: snowball:404$ ls -l /dev/sda2 brw-rw-rw- 1 root root 8, 2 Nov 7 07:54 /dev/sda2 I use stretch, but

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

Hi. On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 04:05:17PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 09:35:32AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > I started writing that in my previous message, but then I actually > > tested it on my own system. Good thing I did, because I got the > > same

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Monday 07 November 2016 14:48:29 Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/7/2016 7:57 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 07:12:00AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >>> Debian is trying to protect you from

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

Le septidi 17 brumaire, an CCXXV, Greg Wooledge a écrit : > There is a minuscule decrease > in efficiency when another directory in PATH has to be searched, but > it's probably not going to be noticeable. What will be noticeable, though, it the namespace

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Mon 07 Nov 2016 at 09:27:47 -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/7/2016 8:19 AM, Felipe Salvador wrote: > > > >I don't see this behaviour > > > >~$ lsblk -fr > >NAME FSTYPE LABEL UUID MOUNTPOINT > >sda > >sda1 ext2 ... /boot > >sda2 ext4 ... / > >sda3 ext2 ... /tmp > >etc etc etc > > > >or

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 09:57:14AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > In any case, off-list someone suggested using >/sbin/blkid /dev/sda* > That works. *BUT* I wonder about unknown implications of "/sbin" > being required if not explicitly running as root. It's simply because /sbin is not in

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On 11/7/2016 8:27 AM, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 08:18:28AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: Evidently not a solution. Added myself to both "disk" and "root" groups. Had no effect when attempting to run either lsblk or parted. Is there a reason you can't use sudo? Not a matter

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On 11/7/2016 8:19 AM, Felipe Salvador wrote: On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:37:53AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: On 11/7/2016 6:20 AM, Felipe Salvador wrote: On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: *HOWEVER* parted requires root privileges. That is not acceptable.

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

Felipe Salvador writes: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:37:53AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: >> On 11/7/2016 6:20 AM, Felipe Salvador wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: >> > > *HOWEVER* parted requires root privileges. That is not

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 08:48:29AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/7/2016 7:57 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > >Hash: SHA1 > > > >On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 07:12:00AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: [...] > I

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 09:35:32AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 03:27:12PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Two things: [...] > I started writing that in my previous message, but then I actually > tested it on my own

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On 11/7/2016 7:57 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 07:12:00AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: [...] Debian is trying to protect you from someone taking over your... say Apache [...] My Debian machines do not physically have

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 03:27:12PM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Two things: > - check that your disk devices are actually readable (and probably >writable, I botched that, cf. David's mail) by group disk > - your being added to disk is effective *after* logging in after >you'd made

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 09:27:11AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 08:18:28AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > > Evidently not a solution. Added myself to both "disk" and "root" > > groups. > > Had no effect when attempting to run

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 08:18:28AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/7/2016 7:25 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: > >On 11/7/2016 6:47 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > >>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > >>Hash: SHA1 > >> > >>On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 08:18:28AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > Evidently not a solution. Added myself to both "disk" and "root" > groups. > Had no effect when attempting to run either lsblk or parted. Is there a reason you can't use sudo? Sample output on my system at work: $ lsblk -f NAME

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:37:53AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/7/2016 6:20 AM, Felipe Salvador wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > *HOWEVER* parted requires root privileges. That is not acceptable. > > > Suggestions? > > > TIA > > > > lsblk

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On 11/7/2016 7:25 AM, Richard Owlett wrote: On 11/7/2016 6:47 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: I need to identify file system on all partitions of my hard drive whether mounted or not.

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 08:02:30AM -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 07 Nov 2016 at 13:47:27 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > > > I need to identify file system on all partitions

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Mon 07 Nov 2016 at 13:47:27 (+0100), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > > I need to identify file system on all partitions of my hard drive > > whether mounted or not. > > parted /dev/sda print | grep ext | grep -v exte > > reports

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 07:25:33AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: [...] > >>*HOWEVER* parted requires root privileges. That is not acceptable. > >>Suggestions? [...] > >So you'd have to be associated to the "disk" group to read those > >things and

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Monday, November 07, 2016 07:11:50 AM Richard Owlett wrote: > I need to identify file system on all partitions of my hard drive > whether mounted or not. > parted /dev/sda print | grep ext | grep -v exte > reports the desired information [partitions formatted ext?] in a > convenient

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 07:12:00AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: [...] > >Debian is trying to protect you from someone taking over your... > >say Apache [...] > > My Debian machines do not physically have networking capability. > See my email

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On 11/7/2016 6:47 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: I need to identify file system on all partitions of my hard drive whether mounted or not. parted /dev/sda print | grep ext | grep -v

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On 11/7/2016 6:51 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:37:53AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: On 11/7/2016 6:20 AM, Felipe Salvador wrote: On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: *HOWEVER* parted requires

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:37:53AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > On 11/7/2016 6:20 AM, Felipe Salvador wrote: > >On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > >>*HOWEVER* parted requires root privileges. That is not acceptable. >

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > I need to identify file system on all partitions of my hard drive > whether mounted or not. > parted /dev/sda print | grep ext | grep -v exte > reports the desired information

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On 11/7/2016 6:20 AM, Felipe Salvador wrote: On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: *HOWEVER* parted requires root privileges. That is not acceptable. Suggestions? TIA lsblk -fr ? Debian is perverse ;{ man page suggested good things. However when run as other than

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: I need to identify file system on all partitions of my hard drive whether mounted or not. parted /dev/sda print | grep ext | grep -v exte reports the desired information [partitions formatted ext?] in a convenient format.

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

Op 07-11-16 om 13:11 schreef Richard Owlett: I need to identify file system on all partitions of my hard drive whether mounted or not. parted /dev/sda print | grep ext | grep -v exte reports the desired information [partitions formatted ext?] in a convenient format. *HOWEVER* parted requires

Re: parted is ALMOST suitable

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 06:11:50AM -0600, Richard Owlett wrote: > *HOWEVER* parted requires root privileges. That is not acceptable. > Suggestions? > TIA lsblk -fr ? -- Felipe Salvador

parted is ALMOST suitable

I need to identify file system on all partitions of my hard drive whether mounted or not. parted /dev/sda print | grep ext | grep -v exte reports the desired information [partitions formatted ext?] in a convenient format. *HOWEVER* parted requires root privileges. That is not acceptable.