September 29, 20169 yr No difference at all and it wasn't intended to be critical whatsoever I was just curious and your explanation makes perfect sense. Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk
September 29, 20169 yr Author No difference at all and it wasn't intended to be critical whatsoever I was just curious and your explanation makes perfect sense. Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk Sorry, that was a rhetorical question not meant for you personally. When I made the change in UD, there was some heated discussion I couldn't quite understand.
September 29, 20169 yr Well it's all opensource, they don't like the way you implement then you have every right to tell people to go fork themselves.... Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk
September 29, 20169 yr Author Well it's all opensource, they don't like the way you implement then you have every right to tell people to go fork themselves.... Sent from my LG-H815 using Tapatalk Yes, they could pull the code from github and do it their way though. So I guess they could fork themselves.
September 29, 20169 yr What difference does it make to you as long as the device is mounted? Had to do mine in the GO script. I needed a single share point for multiple devices. What I wanted was something like the following: /mnt/disks/recordings/drive1, /mnt/disks/recordings/drive2, /mnt/disks/recordings/drive3, etc.. and the /mnt/disks/recordings as the share point. This way I could still mount SMB shares and other drives under /mnt/disks and not see them as well. In the GO file I ended up with /mnt/recordings instead since I didn't want to mess up anything with UD.
September 30, 20169 yr Nice.... If you specify a path on /mnt/... there must be somewhere in that path, before you hit the loopback image file, where there exists a mount point. Code used to just check second dir component of path, now will keep checking until it finds one.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.