On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 06:20:15PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > > Would a system that has: > > /cdrom > > /floppy > > /media/ > > floppy -> /floppy > > cdrom -> /media > > comply with the FHS? How about one where they symlinks go the other way? > Either would work, especially because the deprecation on new root dirs > has been removed in FHS2.3. > From a technical perspective, mount over a symlink to a directory > works as expected (under Linux 2.4 at least), too.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 03:53:18PM +1100, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: > How do we respond to this? For /srv, I think it's pretty clear we > want "Accept proposal as in FHS 2.3 beta 3". What about /media? AFAICS (based on the above) we should be happy to follow the FHS's lead. > - /media/cdrom > - /mnt/cdrom > - /cdrom > - No change [1] > - The FHS should not specify and allow it wherever the distribution wishes [2] > - Other [3] I don't think any of the above (including /mnt/cdrom) would cause a problem for Debian as a distro. Personally I'm inclined to think /media is likely to be the best name in the long term. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
pgpxgoBpehcuT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
