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

[Daniel Quinlan <quinlan@transmeta.com>]

Brian F. Kimball writes:

> IMHO it's a good rationale for not having such mount points in the root
> directory, but it's not a good rationale for specifying exactly where
> those mount points should go and what they should be named.  I still
> think this should be a local issue.

FHS does not try to tell local sysadmins what to do.  In fact, we
couldn't care less.  This is only about the default configuration for
a clean install.  I don't see how anyone could get the impression that
FHS is trying to tell sysadmins what to do on their systems.  What are
we going to do ... send the sysadmin police after you?

You only need to look so far as my home system and Transmeta to see
how closely local practice matches the original configuration: four
additional directories in root, five symbolic links in root, etc.
(Well, I didn't add them!)

There's the abstract (first page) which only talks about various types
of interoperability, not local system administration.

In section 1.5, "Scope", it says "It is primarily intended to be a
reference and is NOT A TUTORIAL ON HOW TO MANAGE a conforming
filesystem hierarchy."  [emphasis added]

In section 1.7, "Intended Audience", it says "System Administrators
and other interested parties (FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES)". [emphasis
added]

I suppose I could add an additional sentence or two to the scope, but
I'm not sure it would help much.

- Dan