error message if check "use system bus"

[Le Gluon Du Net]

Hello,

if I check "Use system bus", cdemu give me this error message:

Daemon autostart failed. Error:
GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.ServiceUnknown: The name net.sf.cdemu.CDEmuDaemon was not provided by any .service files

and I could no more mount iso image until I unchecked it.

Thank you for your help.

LGDN.

[TheMechanist (example902)]

Get the message as well. But also without checking Use system bus.
Ubuntu 14.04 with Gnome Shell 3.10

[Lubo Diakov (lubod)]

LGDN:

That error message is known, one of the developers wrote about it here: (not sure why it was only posted there and not on launchpad, I guess it doesn't automatically post to both and maybe he forgot.

http://sourceforge.net/p/cdemu/bugs/73/

In short, he recommends using the session rather than system bus, unless you have a specific reason not to, in which case he recommends " to build and install daemon from the source yourself."

The Mechanist
This also seems to be caused by some issue with the vhba dkms module not being built according to the same developer. See:

http://sourceforge.net/p/cdemu/bugs/72/

If you want to verify that is what is happening try this, which is posted in that thread:

please check:
a) if vhba module is properly built (i.e., check the output of 'modinfo vhba' after booting new kernel)
b) after daemon autostart fails, what is the output in daemon's log file; by default, the log file should be called .cdemu-daemon.log and located in your home folder, so you can check if for example using 'cat ~/.cdemu-daemon.log'

Unfortunately I don't really have a better suggestion than to remove and reinstall the package, but that did seem to work for the previous case.

I packaged cdemu for trusty, and if I leave it on "use session bus" it works for me (this in Lubuntu Trusty). I suspect only the developers can say definitively why it does that, though I would guess it has to do with some incompatibility of the present version with Gnome3, as Lubuntu is I believe mostly (entirely?) based on GTK/Gnome 2.

[Henrik S. (henrik-hw0)]

This option has been removed in the upcoming version soI will mark this as fixed. As for the 2.1.1 version, yes, the option to run on system bus was disabled for security reasons.

[Lubo Diakov (lubod)]

Thanks for letting me know, Henrik.

I actually have a number of questions for you about possible further
repackaging of version 2.1.1, mostly to correct minor errors (like the
fact the changelog shows my name/email addr. but not yours) introduced
by me when building, or attempts to fix something that isn't quite
right for other reasons. Some/all of this may have no use for version
3.0, but what can I say, since the initial goal (repackage for Trusty)
is done, and I have time, I'd like to polish it up to remove minor
annoyances. I can be a perfectionist when time allows.

I will try to be brief (maybe even one line of text or a short
paragraph per issue). :-)

1. Fix packing files to have both original info and my changes
2. I think there may be some missing/incorrect info in
/usr/src/vhba-20130607/dkms.conf
Specifically, I compared it to the corresponding file for Virtualbox,
also uses dkms, and vhba is different (I think this relates to why I
had trouble removing the saucy version to install my package) (trying
to be brief, honest)
3. Same idea for /lib/udev/rules.d/40-vhba-dkms.rules it also differs
from Virtualbox, and since Virtualbox's dkms components work well, I
assume (maybe incorrectly?) that they are closer to the
official/supported Debian/Ubuntu syntax.
4. During removal/installation it throws errors/warnings at the user,
if the above changes fix those, I'll redo the package for trusty. If
you have a system running Precise (12.04, also an LTS) or Debian
Wheezy 7 (current stable) it might make sense to redo those packages
for the same reason.
5. Finally, is there any reason the version for vhba is 20130607
rather than 2.1.1? If the files were all the same version 2.1.1 it
seems more logical somehow, as an end user I'd prefer it that way.

P.S. Not to be self-congratulatory, but if the existing Trusty package
meets your approval, since you already gave me access to upload source
packages to the ppa, you can mark me as package maintainer. :-)
--
Любомир Гаврилов Дяков
емайл:
<email address hidden>