<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"> </head> <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff"> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > That's not under policykit's remit, really. policykit can deal with > policies regarding mounting drives, but not what you get to see on what > drive. That would appear to be exactly what good old file/folder > permissions and/or ACLs are for? Why can't you do that? Understood about file/folder permission but the mounting drive is a concern. For a better clarification , say there are multiple users (3) in this scenario: user1, user2, and user3. user1 has bar1, user2 has bar2 and user3 has none. I set rules for policykit to mount for all but user3 under /media/foo. I created a symlink for all but user3 from /media/foo/barX on desktop (Gnome environment for example). /media/foo icon is displayed on desktop; is it possible to hide it? Another question User1 logs in and switched to another session for user2. Then user2 switch to another session for user3 who cannot access to /media/foo as expected. Will /media/foo be mounted for both user1 and user2 and bar1 folder not accessible for user1? I just want to get familiar with this new policy having used to system->preferences->Authorization. - -- Luya Tshimbalanga Graphic & Web Designer E: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:luya@fedoraproject.org">luya@fedoraproject.org</a> W: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.thefinalzone.net">http://www.thefinalzone.net</a> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksFwrUACgkQaS6HaNQHFTnyMwCghOy3NKYjUqV+WmRAbxSVHyW6 tdwAn2qNJkpPR6ZLUpwWJfKq/H2SJB2E =hJAQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- </body> </html>