--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
[PATCH] doc: add comment about ofl for Pam mount. |
Date: |
Sun, 03 May 2020 14:42:26 +0200 |
Pam mount uses `ofl` from hxtools [1] to kill processes that have open
files on the filesystem mounted.
As we dont have hxtools (and I think we shouldnt), one has to configure
pam mount to use something else, eg `fuser`. This is an attempt to
document that somehow.
From 7a3cd9cd00cbd95e599a8d79400591e2fc589f33 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michael Rohleder <mike@rohleder.de>
Date: Sun, 3 May 2020 14:17:37 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] doc: add comment about ofl for Pam mount.
* doc/guix.texi: (Pam Mount) add comment about ofl.
---
doc/guix.texi | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi
index d5d8662937..aa182df183 100644
--- a/doc/guix.texi
+++ b/doc/guix.texi
@@ -25441,6 +25441,8 @@ the partition where he stores his data:
(hup "0")
(term "no")
(kill "no")))
+ ;; if anything above is "true":
+ ;; (ofl "/run/current-system/profile/bin/fuser -km %(MNTPT)")
(mkmountpoint (@@ (enable "1")
(remove "true")))))
--
2.26.2
Footnotes:
[1] https://github.com/ghthor/hxtools
--
"These download files are in Microsoft Word 6.0 format. After unzipping,
these files can be viewed in any text editor, including all versions of
Microsoft Word, WordPad, and Microsoft Word Viewer." [Microsoft website]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
Re: [bug#41048] [PATCH] doc: add comment about ofl for Pam mount. |
Date: |
Wed, 02 Sep 2020 22:18:42 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Michael,
Michael Rohleder <mike@rohleder.de> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>>> + ;; if anything above is "true":
>>> + ;; (ofl "/run/current-system/profile/bin/fuser -km %(MNTPT)")
>>
>> It’s not clear what these two lines mean. The idea is to tell users to
>> configure PAM Mount to use ‘fuser’ as a replacement for ‘ofl’, right? I
>> think that’d deserve one or two sentences of explanation. WDYT?
>
> Yes, that is/was the idea, because killing processes would not work
> otherwise.
OK.
> Now that we have autofs, I don't think it's relevant any more, so we can
> close it?
Fine with me, done!
Thanks,
Ludo’.
--- End Message ---