Bug 409592

> Any device should have at most a single entry.
Definitely.


> Entries from `/etc/fstab` should be excluded.
Not sure about this one. How can we be sure that the devices you might have added to /etc/fstab that wouldn't otherwise show up in the Places panel should be omitted?


> However, in all KDE Plasma versions I’ve encountered I get at least some of
> the local filesystems in the Devices section and usually all of my NFS shares
> in the Remote section of the Places panel. (At least the latter might actually
> be the designers’ intention although I find it unsettling.)
Yes, this is by design. Can you explain why you don't like it? Keep in mind that individual entries in the places panel can be hidden if you'd rather not see them.

Created attachment 121546 [details]
signature.asc

Kirjoitit tiistaina 16. heinäkuuta 2019 0.28:

> > Entries from `/etc/fstab` should be excluded.
> 
> Not sure about this one. How can we be sure that the devices you might have
> added to /etc/fstab that wouldn't otherwise show up in the Places panel
> should be omitted?

I think gvfs is handling this just so: it excludes fstab entries from places.
Most of the entries in fstab are in any case either “system” folders (like eg. 
/boot, /var, /usr/local) or “subroots” (eg. /home—anything worthwhile resides 
only under it). They don’t require shortcuts, and they can even be distracting 
for ordinary users.

I know they can be hidden one by one, and that’s what I usually do, but then I 
have to remember doing that for every user account I set up for others too— 
unless I want to get a hasty phone call saying user can’t access something 
they think they should!

>> However, in all KDE Plasma versions I’ve encountered I get at least some
>> of the local filesystems in the Devices section and usually all of my NFS
>> shares in the Remote section of the Places panel. (At least the latter
>> might actually be the designers’ intention although I find it
>> unsettling.)
> 
> Yes, this is by design. Can you explain why you don't like it?

I can fully understand NFS/Samba/other network shares appearing in Network 
places (although I personally find that distracting too; after all, I’ve 
mounted the shares for a purpose: to sit tightly in the directory tree as they 
should). This one I won’t be pressing on as it’s only a matter of taste :)

Maybe a halfway solution: could KIO respect x-gvfs-hide? Or does it already, I 
haven’t actually tried?

(In reply to Tommi Nieminen from comment #2)
> I think gvfs is handling this just so: it excludes fstab entries from places.
> Most of the entries in fstab are in any case either “system” folders (like
> eg. 
> /boot, /var, /usr/local) or “subroots” (eg. /home—anything worthwhile
> resides 
> only under it). They don’t require shortcuts, and they can even be
> distracting 
> for ordinary users.
Some entries are already omitted (e.g. swap partitions and the EFI boot partition). I believe you're talking about entries that you've manually added, right? Ordinary users don't manually edit /etc/fstab.


> Maybe a halfway solution: could KIO respect x-gvfs-hide? Or does it already,
> I 
> haven’t actually tried?
In fact, this is already supported! :)

https://cgit.kde.org/solid.git/tree/src/solid/devices/backends/fstab/fstabstorageaccess.cpp#n47

Is that sufficient for your purposes?

Created attachment 121558 [details]
signature.asc

Kirjoitit tiistaina 16. heinäkuuta 2019 20.22:

> Some entries are already omitted (e.g. swap partitions and the EFI boot
> partition). I believe you're talking about entries that you've manually
> added, right? Ordinary users don't manually edit /etc/fstab.

Yeah, that’s was part of why I thought it unnecessary for those entries to 
show up in KIO places—if users cannot actually *do* anything with them, 
neither should they be offered them.

But:

>> Maybe a halfway solution: could KIO respect x-gvfs-hide? Or does it
>> already, I
>> haven’t actually tried?
> 
> In fact, this is already supported! :)

Damn, I SHOULD have tried that first. Sorry, I’ll do it next time!

I think you can now mark the bug as solved (maybe adding a sidenote on the x-
gvfs-hide trick?).

Awesome!

Yeah, the documentation is generally pretty lacking. :/ It's an ongoing area of concern and work.