Greetings.

Didier Kryn - 22.03.26, 10:44:31 CET:

>      On the other hand, my own qmount does all this without spawning
> lsblk, then parsing its output, and then executing mount. But it also
> depends on the udev database. It seems more feature-rich, and has a
> clear policy. Instead, there is no word about the policy of
> https://github.com/rbisewski/qmount

[…]

>      rmount, smount tmount don't seem to have any meaning, umount
> already does the opposite. qmnt?

Just "mnt"?

Otherwise can you describe a bit that your mount command does differently
or what makes it so special compared to other alternatives? I got it does
not depend on lsblk and mount. Was that your original motivation to create
it? Or what else is your ambition?

Knowing more about the purpose of the command may help o find a suitable
name. The other qmount has the following description on GitHub:

"quickly mount a device in Linux, written in golang"

How about "quickmount" then? Might be a bit long. "qm" on the other hand
is quite short and might be ambiguous with other programs. Maybe
"fastmount" or "fmount"? But "quick" has a bit of different notion than
"fast". Like in "quick" to type. That does not go well with "fast" as
replacement. And I suppose the mount process in itself is not noticeably
faster cause most of the heavy lifting will be done by the filesystem to
be mounted.

From that GitHub I get it that the other "qmount" mounts without
destination path given, inside "/media". I remember such a command from
earlier times. It was called "pmount" and could also be used as an user.
But when its about reducing command line arguments, it could also be
"easymount" or "emount"? Or when it is about mounting as an user without
"fstab" entry "usermount" however "umount" as a shortcut would not work
then?

About "rmount", "smount", "tmount", "pmount" or whatever not having any
meaning in itself well that is the case with "qmount" or "qmnt" as well?

Best,
--
Martin