( also CCd to "AKL. Mantas Kriauciunas" <mantas@akl.lt>, Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@pathname.com>, Christopher Yeoh <cyeoh@samba.org>, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, ) AKL. Mantas Kriauciunas wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 08:26:54AM -0800, Stephen Samuel (leave the email alone) wrote:The easiest way to make it compliant would be to add a symlink(s) from /mnt to /mediaNo, it seems you didn't read FHS standard (follow link above): [..] Although the use of subdirectories in /mnt as a mount point has recentlybeen common, it conflicts with a much older tradition of using /mnt directly as a temporary mount point.
Urk.
You're right. I didn't read the docs.
And I was afraid that this would be the case. It seems strange
that a 'standard' would make current common use obsolete in favour
of an older (and almost obsolete' method of doing things. That will
leave system designers with a choice of which obsolete setup to have
on their distribution.
I personally think that it would have been far better to designate
something like /mnt/tmp as an explicit 'temporary' nount point, with
other locations being 'undefined', but /mnt itself being considered
a dangerous place to mount things (since it would break a habit
thai is currently rather common).
Having people create /mnt/tmp would not be inconsistent with
redesigning the entire subdirectory by mounting on top of it.
it's also not uncommon to have multiple filesystems that one
wants to mount temporarily (e.g. knoppix). Having only the
one temporary mount point available would force users to come
up with things like /mnt2 /mnt3, etc. which is addressed in
the discussion on /media.
making a current common practice 'dangerous' strikes me as silly.
--
Stephen Samuel +1(604)876-0426 samnospam@bcgreen.com
http://www.bcgreen.com/
Powerful committed communication. Transformation touching
the jewel within each person and bringing it to light.