Re: /mnt/cdrom or /mnt ?
[ reply to a post from lsb-discuss ]
Jochem Huhmann <joh@unidui.uni-duisburg.de> writes:
> there seems to be some confusion right now if temporary mounts (of
> changable media like CD's) should use /mnt/something or /something.
>
> Debian uses /cdrom, which is also hardcoded in apt-get. Solaris also
> uses /cdrom. Redhat uses /mnt/cdrom. I've always had the impression that
> /mnt is the right place for such mounts, since cluttering / with this
> (think of /cdrom, /cdrw, /floppy, /jazz, /zip, /dvd ...) is ugly at
> least.
>
> Should the LSB take care of this? The FHS seems to be quite sloppy on
> this item.
I think this is better addressed in FHS, not here. Is there a reason
to avoid bringing it up there first? (I should note that this has
been discussed *many* times on the FHS list, with many suggestions and
not a lot of agreement.)
What worries me is that in the twenty odd postings on this topic here,
I didn't see any descriptions of where this was a problem for ISV
software. I'm not inclined for LSB to take care of any problem
lacking a problem description that negatively impacts application
portability. Standardizing away annoyances is not only unnecessary,
but also prone to failure.
On the other hand, I can actually come up with cases where
applications might want standardized mount points for removable
devices. The application's installation instructions, for example.
I'd still like to see this discussed on the FHS mailing list, though.
- Dan
Reply to: