On 01/29/2010 08:27 AM, Martin Pitt wrote:
But is udev compatible with BSD at all?
u{disks,power} are on a higher architecture level than udev, and thus
are more abstract and easier to implement on a different OS. So using
those APIs has a higher chance of portability than using udev.
Hello Jannis,
Jannis Pohlmann [2010-01-27 10:29 +0100]:
> The thing is: we'd like Xfce to remain portable. We're working together
> with BSD folks and for them HAL was quite a pain already. Now that we
> have DeviceKit-disks (or rather udisks) it looks like they'll run into
> the same incompatibil
Hey,
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:06:46 +0100
Martin Pitt wrote:
> Hello Jannis,
>
> Jannis Pohlmann [2010-01-11 15:11 +]:
> > So I'm thinking about dropping HAL in favor of DeviceKit-disks.
>
> That's a good idea either way, since HAL is deprecated and not being
> maintained any more. :-) Thank
Hello Jannis,
Jannis Pohlmann [2010-01-11 15:11 +]:
> Unfortunately it's implemented on top of HAL and mounts volumes with
> HAL as well which seems to be incompatible with DeviceKit-disks. When a
> volume is mounted with HAL and later someone tries to unmount it with
> DeviceKit-disks (via GI
Hey,
over at Xfce we have an application called thunar-volman that is used
to perform certain actions when a device is plugged into the computer.
It distinguishes between various types of devices (such as
removable media, CD-R/Ws, DVD-R/Ws, cameras, portable music
players, PDAs, printers, tablet
