Re: PROPOSAL for FHS revised : Mount points for CDs, floppies and alien OS partitions.]
Hi ,
On Thu, Jun 22, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
>
> > 1. /cdrom is also already accepted practice by a large number of
> > Linux systems, many of the distributions are much older then RedHat
> > and co.
>
> The "age" of a distribution isn't as germane to this discussion as is the
> size of the installed base. If the majority of Linux users have cdrom in
> /mnt, then that is the path of least resistance.
No, the majority doesn't have cdrom in /mnt. Red Hat has it, and Red Hat
has only the majority in USA. In Europe, it is SuSE Linux, in Asia
TurboLinux.
And what is with Solaris ? And with HP-UX ? They all don't have
/mnt/cdrom.
> > 2. We don't speak about Linux, we speak about an FHS proposal. (Look
> > at the subject.
> > FHS is for all Unix systems, not only Linux. And the /use of /mnt
> > as a temporary mount point is more widespeard as the practice of
> > /mnt/{floppy,cdrom}. Speak with one who uses Solaris, AIX, HP-UX
> > or whatever.
>
> I thought that part of the goal of FHS was to define the future, not just
> specify the past... Please let me know if I'm incorrect.
No, you are correct.
>
> If the best solution is to put cdrom, floppy, etc under /mnt, why
> shouldn't the FHS promote that?
Why is it the best solution ? Only because some Linux distributions
have it ? /mnt has a special meaning in the Unix world since years.
Yes, FHS should define the future, but not break with the past.
And if FHS should be for all Unix, we also need to take care for
the other Unix, not only some few Linux distributions.
>
> In my (very humble) opinion, putting cdrom, floppy, and whatever else
> under /mnt has two long-term advantages:
>
> ** Allows the specification to adapt to changes in technology better -- if
> we put mount points in /, new devices may become commonplace enough to
> require us to add another standardized mount point, and backwards
> compatibility would dictate keeping the outdated devices -- we're already
> seeing that with DVD-ROM drives replacing CDROM. Having all that in /
> would generate a lot of mount points, most of which would be unused.
Yes, this is the reason why we have no problems with moving /cdrom into
a sub directory. But we have big problems with /mnt, and not only SuSE.
On the LSB meeting, the most people/distributors have problems with /mnt.
This was the reason why some distributors, who currently use /mnt, wish
to move away from it.
We need to find a new directory, which is not historical in use by
something other. Don't break to much.
>
> ** Reduces root clutter. Putting the mount points on the root filesystem
> could generate excessive numbers of mount points, as standardizing on this
> would logically lead to creating separate directories on the root
> filesystem for _every_ mountable device. Now on your average workstation,
> you'll probably only see /floppy, /cdrom, /dvd, and maybe /zip, but what
> about on a large computer? What about Linux on a s/390? Or a SGI
> Origin2000? Do we want to have a root filesystem that has /cdrom0 -
> /cdrom19? Now, if all of these directories were defineable as being under
> /mnt, it would be rather clean and elegant.
>
> Please elucidate me if I am incorrect in my reasoning.
No, you are correct. But this is not the point.
Thorsten
--
Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ kukuk@suse.de
SuSE GmbH Schanzaeckerstr. 10 90443 Nuernberg
Linux is like a Vorlon. It is incredibly powerful, gives terse,
cryptic answers and has a lot of things going on in the background.
Reply to: