Bazon [2009-03-30 14:03 -0000]:
> What about the same problem with mount OPTIONS?
> Is that fixed also?
No, it's not. Writing a validity checker for mount options is a much
bigger task.
> Or should we file a new bug for that?
It probably needs to be fixed in an entirely different way, such as
allowing to change the options if the mount failed.
However, NB that gnome-mount will go away upstream soon, so upstream
won't invest resources into fixing gnome-mount any more. For
Canonical/Ubuntu community, this is too much effort for a too small
bug to be worthwhile spending much time on, too. But if anyone wants
to work on this, please go ahead, of course. :-)
Bazon [2009-03-30 14:03 -0000]:
> What about the same problem with mount OPTIONS?
> Is that fixed also?
No, it's not. Writing a validity checker for mount options is a much
bigger task.
> Or should we file a new bug for that?
It probably needs to be fixed in an entirely different way, such as
allowing to change the options if the mount failed.
However, NB that gnome-mount will go away upstream soon, so upstream
won't invest resources into fixing gnome-mount any more. For
Canonical/Ubuntu community, this is too much effort for a too small
bug to be worthwhile spending much time on, too. But if anyone wants
to work on this, please go ahead, of course. :-)