Richard Troth wrote:
Thanks for all the feedback.
I've seen cases where, for example, a sub-dir of /proc is a mount
point, and the mount point gets created before /proc is actually
mounted. (Some script somewhere must be doing this, because the
'mount' command executable does not.) So a missing /usr/local (mount
point) doesn't necessarily ensure that the two cannot get out of
sequence.
It doesn't matter all that much (to me) whether mounting /usr/local
ahead of /usr can be prevented. The cascade of mounts is inelegant.
So the question is simply if anyone sees problems with /usr/local
being a sym-link to /local ... up one level. Doesn't sound like
anyone thinks that is really a problem.
I think you are trying to solve a problem that does not exist. I
disagree that nesting mounts is inelegant, and your hack belongs to the
realm of Crude Hacks(tm).
During system initialisation, expect filesystems to be mounted with the
mount command thus:
mount -a
Expect that when this happens that the root filesystem is already mounted.
According to fstab(5), the approved way to read fstab in a program is
with getmntent(3). Since the documentation for that function does not
state otherwise, expect that entries are returned in the order in which
they appear.
Since that is the standard way of programmatically reading /etc/fstab,
it is reasonable to expect the mount command to do that.
So, the solution to your problem is to order entries in fstab in the
order in which you want them mounted, that is, /usr before /usr/local.
Doing this in non-standard ways goes to increasing maintenance costs
(you actually have to do extra work) and extra training costs (you have
to explain to new hires why you do things in such a strange way).
By all means put what I have said before blindly implementing it, I
would call that "insurance."
I've got another one. Will make that another subject for proper threading.
-- R; <><
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 13:55, Richard Troth <[email protected]> wrote:
folks --
Does anyone see or imagine or know of any negative impact from having
/usr/local be a symbolic link to /local? One of my teammates is
asking.
I have personally endorsed this particular hack. It lets us have /usr
and /local each be in their own filesystem and yet not have a mount
fight. That is, if /usr/local and /usr were each unique filesystems,
you could wind up with bad things like one FS hiding the other.
(Rare, but possible.) So instead, I am in the habit of moving
/usr/local to /local and letting there be a sym-link /usr/local. What
then is the risk?
Novell? RedHat? What do y'all say? Is there a problem with this?
Thanks.
-- R; <><
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[email protected] [email protected]
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
