Re: PROPOSAL for FHS: Mount points for CDs, floppies and alien OS partitions.

[Jim Knoble <jmknoble@pint-stowp.cx>]

Circa 2000-Jun-14 02:26:09 -0700 schrieb Daniel Quinlan:

: Johannes Poehlmann writes:
: > There may be a new subdirectory "/mnt.d". It may contain subdirectories
: > which are mount points for removable media like floppy disk, cdrom
: > or DVD drives. Also may there be subdirectories which are mount points
: > for non linux partitions.
: 
: Nice idea.
: 
: One complaint we might hear is that the name "/mnt.d" will "interfere"
: with tab-key shell completion.

I might as well go ahead and echo that complaint right now.  Also, it's
so similar to /mnt/ that it could cause significant confusion for some
classes of users, and for others trying to help them.

Johannes Poehlmann <johannes@caldera.de> wrote:
: "/mnt" is reserved as a temporary mount point and not as
: a directory of mount points by common practice.

Define "common practice".  Red Hat Linux has used /mnt/cdrom and
/mnt/floppy for the last four years or so; i myself have been using
them since 1993.

Back to Dan Quinlan:
: Other possible names:
:   /mounts

  Recommend against that; too easily confusable with /mnt/.

:   /media
:   /vol    (not a good name: conflicting practice, confusion w/ volume manager)

also consider:

    /misc/    (used in some kernel automounter configurations)
    /disk/    (or /disks/)
    /drives/
    /storage/
    /stuff/

or perhaps:

    /MyComputer/ (*ducks and runs*)

: Another possibility is to use something like the Sun two-level hierarchy
: and not automount on the top-level directory.  Use /floppy/fd0.

That sort of defeats the point of having a mount point that
not-so-technical users can understand and remember, doesn't it?

: Finally, we need to consider whether mount points sit directly under
: /xxx/<mount point> or under /xxx/<type>/<mount point>.

Dan, i'm not certain i understand what you mean by <type> and <mount
point>.  Do you mean "... under /xxx/floppy or under
/xxx/floppy/floppy"?  Could you clarify?

At the risk of repeating myself, and at making it obvious that i
haven't read through FHS in quite some time:  I don't quite understand
what's wrong with using /mnt/ for the purpose Johannes proposes.  What
body of existing practice is there that would prohibit using /mnt/?
Temporary mounts can easily use /mnt/tmp/ instead of /mnt/.

-- 
jim knoble | jmknoble@jmknoble.cx | http://www.jmknoble.cx/