After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 723121 - GtkPlacesSidebar: pressing "eject" icon does not power down drive
GtkPlacesSidebar: pressing "eject" icon does not power down drive
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: gtk+
Classification: Platform
Component: .General
unspecified
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: gtk-bugs
gtk-bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2014-01-27 19:36 UTC by David Zeuthen (not reading bugmail)
Modified: 2014-01-29 19:01 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description David Zeuthen (not reading bugmail) 2014-01-27 19:36:34 UTC 
Today (on at least Fedora 20) if I attach a removable USB HDD or a USB stick pressing the "eject" icon in GNOME Shell causes the device to be powered down virtue of GNOME Shell using g_drive_stop() [1].

However, if I do the same on GtkPlacesSidebar (e.g. if press the "eject" icon) although it does disappear from the GUI, the device is NOT powered down. This is because GtkPlacesSidebar calls g_drive_eject() instead of g_drive_stop(). (Note, however, that GktPlacesSidebar offers a "safely remove" option hidden behind a context menu when right-clicking. But this is mostly worthless.)

The GNOME Shell behavior is the correct one because it's what people except, e.g. HDDs spin down, LEDs on USB sticks are turned off etc. We should fix GtkPlacesSidebar to do the same.

[1] : ... of course, it only does this if g_drive_can_stop() returns TRUE. Also note that g_drive_can_stop() is being very careful here, see 

 https://git.gnome.org/browse/gvfs/tree/monitor/udisks2/gvfsudisks2drive.c?id=1.19.4#n237

in particular it ensures that optical drives eject their medium instead of powering them down.
Comment 1 Sebastien Bacher 2014-01-28 10:58:18 UTC 
Would it make sense to have that in gtk-3-10 as well?
Comment 2 David Zeuthen (not reading bugmail) 2014-01-29 18:37:18 UTC 
(In reply to comment #1)
> Would it make sense to have that in gtk-3-10 as well?

Seems like a good idea to me.
Comment 3 Matthias Clasen 2014-01-29 18:43:36 UTC 
already done
Comment 4 David Zeuthen (not reading bugmail) 2014-01-29 19:01:38 UTC 
Cool - thanks for fixing this so quickly btw!