Re: /etc/shutmsg - a suggestion?
On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Stephen J. Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 1998 at 11:11:31AM +0200, ulisses@pusa.eleinf.uv.es wrote:
[...]
> >
> > If this directory is mounted readonly it will fail, I think is a common
> > practice to have /etc readonly when an installation is stable (no more
> > software updates, etc) to avoid hard disk corruption in one of the most
> > important system directories...
> >
[...]
>
> That tends to imply that /etc could be mounted read-only.
> however... mtab is writeable and needs to be? hmmm
> (that is mentioned in the fsstnd also)...
>
>
> > Should this be written to /var/<something>?
>
> I tend to agree....having read the fsstnd, I tend to think mtab should be
> moved there as well. It seems to be the intention of it to move
> (ideally) everything which NEEDS to be writable for the system to function
> to /var
Wouldn't it work if /etc/mtab were a link to, say, /var/[...]/mtab
(and there's also /etc/rmtab).
>
> I find it curious that this was not also moved. Also to be noted
> that /etc contains files (like fstab) which are NEEDED for boot and
> to even mount other file systems...so it MUST be part of
> the root partition and can not be on a partition of its own
> (unless...it existed and had enough files to boot...then got
> overlayed with a larger partition...seems to defeat the purpose though)
Well, not if the purpose is a read-only /etc partition.
Hey, what about /setc and /etc like /sbin and /bin !
>
> and teh root partition must be mounted read-write.
Yes but not much changes there, does it?
At boot time, /dev changed, /etc had motd and ioctl.save updated,
and /proc was mounted. That's about it if you set up links for
mounting floppies and so on (I don't).
Cheers,
--
Email: d.wright@open.ac.uk Tel: +44 1908 653 739 Fax: +44 1908 655 151
Snail: David Wright, Earth Science Dept., Milton Keynes, England, MK7 6AA
Disclaimer: These addresses are only for reaching me, and do not signify
official stationery. Views expressed here are either my own or plagiarised.
Reply to: