Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
- All mount points in /mnt (e.g. /mnt/cdrom, /mnt/camera, /mnt/windows/C) <- breaks FreeBSD standard for an empty /mnt Might be workable if there was a /mnt/mnt, but that's so ridiculous I'd be against it as a matter of humour-prevention :-) It would be o.k., if you call it /mnt/tmp with the same policy as /mnt has now. But to not break things, call the new directory /mounts and define a /mounts/tmp for the purpose /mnt has nowadays in FreeBSD. In addition declare the use of /mnt deprecated and within only ten generations of sysadmins we're able to substitute /mnt completely by /mounts. :-) As for the name itself, it should be something not used already. If the beginning letter was unique within / this would be good for shell's tab completion. Only saved keystrokes are good keystrokes. :-) So I suggest /pulp. Easy to remember and if CD standards can be called "Rock Ridge", there is no real argument against it. :-) Ciao Siegbert ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
Could you also explain to me why you think that /var would be such a bad place for this? Well, I probably can't give a hard and fast absolute reason, but... We use /var as a place for directoreis/files that can grow somewhat unexpectedly and weakly controlled, such as spool and logs, etc. Because of that, our /var is most often put in some other large general filesystem with links and doesn't really live in either root (/) or isn't a root located filesystem, but just a directory in another filesystem such as /work (or in some recent ones /lump - I couldn't think of a better name). So, making it the home of mount points would be rather awkward. Just because /var is a symlink to /lump/var shouldn't affect that. But if it's no symlink but a mount you run into trouble, if you want to remount /var (e.g. because out of disk space). So generally I would say this new directory you're looking for, should not be a subdirectory at all, especially if the parent directory is a frequently mounted one by itself. This would rule out /usr, /tmp, /var, /home at least. So better go for the /new_directory variant, IMHO. Ciao Siegbert ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
On Saturday 22 November 2003 8:18, Charles Swiger wrote: > /mnt should be reserved as a default temporary mount point-- it's silly > to risk breaking existing tools or procedures. Anyway, I suggest you > solicit feedback from Solaris users and possibly MacOS X people as > well. Solaris features vold (implied by wanting to use /vol), and the > latter OS places temporary removable mountpoints under /Volumes. The point that /mnt should be left alone is pretty clear, but I'm glad to be able to say "Folks on the FreeBSD questions list agree." As for Mac OS X, they have no intention of being FHS-compliant, so while we may learn some lessons from them, they won't worrz about what we have to say. > I happen to think that OS X handles things well from a user interface > standpoint-- the Finder in Panther with Miller column display and an > eject symbol next to the volume name, but I'm not sure how relevant > that is. Frank, is your group's standard concerned about physical > volume names, logical volume names intended for human > identification/access, or both? > > Physical device names ought to have unit numbers or even be part of a > tree-like device hierarchy-- for instance, what does /cdrom refer to in > a machine with two CD-ROM devices? In the current version of the standard (2.2), nothing. But in the next revision, /foo/cdrom will be a symlink to /foo/cdrom0, and /foo/cdrom1 won't have a link. Managing these links is not the scope of the standard (yet). The priority for the next revision is to define what "/foo" should be. > Human-readable names also run the risk of two removable devices having > the same name; people are happy seeing a list containing duplicate > names (eg, particularly if one name has a CDROM icon next to it, and > the other has a floppy or USB pen icon :-), but that doesn't tell you > what to do with your filesystem hierarchy layout. The actual names of the directories will be undefined, but there will be some suggestions (cdrom, floppy, etc.) > Obviously, a standard that says "place mount points anywhere you want" > isn't very useful. But if you did come up with a standard, who should > follow it and what would they gain? As for who should follow it, Linux distributions (Debian, Red Hat, SuSE) as well as the *BSDs (though I'm not sure exaclty what that means in the BSD world). What would be gained is more for application support. Basically, xmms and xcdroast could configure a /foo/cdrom as a default location, and it will be correct for all FHS-compliant systems. Frank ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:18:30PM -0500, Charles Swiger wrote: > Obviously, a standard that says "place mount points anywhere you want" > isn't very useful. But if you did come up with a standard, who should > follow it and what would they gain? I don't want to speak for the FHS, but I do want to point out that such a standard is indeed useful. This discussion around a standard location for media mounts is but a small part of the complete FHS standard. As such, it can legitimately say "do this", say "do anything but this" or say "not covered by this standard". All three have distinct meanings and implications. To the designer of an FHS-compliant distribution, the third means that they have free reign to do want they want and still claim FHS compliance (assuming they follow the /rest/ of the standard :-) ). -T -- >You can't remotely manage an etch-a-sketch. Oh, I dunno... I reckon you could do it pretty well. All you'd need is a beefy vibrating pager attached/built-in to the etch-a-sketch. Instant remote management... - A.S.R. quote (Peter da Silva, Peter Williams) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
On Nov 21, 2003, at 9:41 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: The folks at the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) are discussing (again) where directories for recurring temporary mount points should go. Recurring temporary mount points are for things like cdroms, floppies, and digital cameras as well as HD partitions from other OSes (like MS Windows). Red Hat started putting these in /mnt (e.g. /mnt/cdrom), but that totally breaks compatibility with the BSDs, which have specified /mnt as an empty directory for ad hoc temporary mounts. SuSE has started putting these in /media, and now folks on the FHS list would like to know what people in the BSDs' communities would prefer. /mnt should be reserved as a default temporary mount point-- it's silly to risk breaking existing tools or procedures. Anyway, I suggest you solicit feedback from Solaris users and possibly MacOS X people as well. Solaris features vold (implied by wanting to use /vol), and the latter OS places temporary removable mountpoints under /Volumes. I happen to think that OS X handles things well from a user interface standpoint-- the Finder in Panther with Miller column display and an eject symbol next to the volume name, but I'm not sure how relevant that is. Frank, is your group's standard concerned about physical volume names, logical volume names intended for human identification/access, or both? Physical device names ought to have unit numbers or even be part of a tree-like device hierarchy-- for instance, what does /cdrom refer to in a machine with two CD-ROM devices? Human-readable names also run the risk of two removable devices having the same name; people are happy seeing a list containing duplicate names (eg, particularly if one name has a CDROM icon next to it, and the other has a floppy or USB pen icon :-), but that doesn't tell you what to do with your filesystem hierarchy layout. Obviously, a standard that says "place mount points anywhere you want" isn't very useful. But if you did come up with a standard, who should follow it and what would they gain? -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 10:07:31AM -0500, Jerry McAllister wrote: > Less Good: > > - All mount points in /mnt (e.g. /mnt/cdrom, /mnt/camera, /mnt/windows/C) > > <- breaks > > FreeBSD standard for an empty /mnt /mnts ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
Frank Murphy wrote: The folks at the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) are discussing (again) where directories for recurring temporary mount points should go. Recurring temporary mount points are for things like cdroms, floppies, and digital cameras as well as HD partitions from other OSes (like MS Windows). Red Hat started putting these in /mnt (e.g. /mnt/cdrom), but that totally breaks compatibility with the BSDs, which have specified /mnt as an empty directory for ad hoc temporary mounts. SuSE has started putting these in /media, and now folks on the FHS list would like to know what people in the BSDs' communities would prefer. I imagine your answer will be something like "We don't care; do what you want," but I would like to present the different ideas, and perhaps you would prefer one. So, please put these in the order of most to least preferred, and say why you like or dislike any of them. - All mount points in / (e.g. /cdrom, /camera, /windows/C) <- current FreeBSD standard OK for a small number of devices, but not down the road when the possibility for a sizeable number of transiently mounted devices could clutter up / . It would be 'less terrible' if a few 'classes' of mounts were created as part of the standard, with actual devices/filesystems below each, although the potential to overly clutter / still exists. Example: /audio /audio/ipod /audio/generic /video/ /video/sonycam /video/generic etc...actually, I think I'm still less than crazy about this one ;-) - All mount points in /mnt (e.g. /mnt/cdrom, /mnt/camera, /mnt/windows/C) <- breaks FreeBSD standard for an empty /mnt Don't like it, as others have stated, too many of us are in the habit of having an 'empty' /mnt , unless we chose to create subdirectories, and I often mount something I know will be used short-term only at /mnt and use it as a single point, instant mount point for 'whatever' I'm mounting temporarily. - Anyplace at all Nope. This just leads to obnoxious workarounds and/or additional configuration files for developing software that needs to use either. Again, using a 'device class heirarchy' comes to mind, like a 'whereis mountd', where a program could ask for the location of a specified class of device, and then in turn scan any mounted devices, but this one's a BIT out of scope of the FS project ;-) - Anyplace but /mnt (i.e. what the FHS 2.2 currently specifies) K, but same as above, although I suppose it depends if they are looking to only define a single top level directory, or possibly more than one, eg subdirectory/mount points? - Anyplace but / or /mnt (e.g. /vol/cdrom, /var/mnt/camera, /media/windows/C) As long as it's consistent and not ALL of the above for the given devices ;-) Again, prefer a single dir entry into /, which can grow as need be... (some suggestions have been /media, /mounts, /vol, /var/mnt, and /var/tmp/removable. Others?) /trans = transient /media (SuSe way) is OK but possibly limiting (thinking of video and other devices that may possibly be mountable instead of accessing via /dev/*) /vol I'm OK with but fairly sure it's being used somewhere already...Solaris? /tfs = temp (or transient) file systems, but doesn't exactly roll off the keyboard.. /fs = easy to type, easy to remember (filesystems), OK by me ;-) /tmp is already taken, drat ;-) Scott Thanks letting us know how you feel about this, Frank Murphy ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
>> > The folks at the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) are discussing > (again) where directories for recurring temporary mount points should go. > Recurring temporary mount points are for things like cdroms, floppies, > and digital cameras as well as HD partitions from other OSes (like MS > Windows). > > ... > > So, please put these in the order of most to least preferred, and say why > you like or dislike any of them. >> - All mount points in / This is bad because it can make / congested and if one of the mounted devices gets sick it can seriously interfere with all sorts of other system operations simply because it gets in the way of directory path traversals beginning at /. - All mount points in /mnt This is very bad because the use of /mnt for a single unplanned spontaneous temporary mount is well established in Unix tradition. - Anyplace at all - Anyplace but /mnt - Anyplace but / or /mnt These are close to being non-recommendations and not very useful. I strongly recommend inventing some new subdirectory name to contain all recurring mount points (not just the temporary ones) that don't have any particular reason for being someplace else. This directory should be in the root file system to minimize the probabilty that these mount points would become inaccessible because some other file system failed. In fact, this directory should be in / because the mount points are important and its name should be short to make the mount points easily referenced. Names already established for specific purposes or managed by software, e.g. /home or /vol, would be bad choices. Individual mount point names should be descriptive or mnemonic and the frequently used mount points should have short names. Examples of mount points that may have particular reasons for being someplace else: /proc, /tmp, /usr, remote file system mount points, mount points in automounter directories. The directory /mnt should be retained for historical reasons. It should be empty and it is not clear that it should actually be used routinely (in case the mounted device gets sick). I use "/fs" for the mount point directory, "/fs/fd" for my primary floppy drive, and "/fs/cd" for my primary cd (rom) drive. I chose the name "/fs" because anything you can mount is almost by definition a file system. Dan Strick [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 03:41:16PM +0100, Frank Murphy wrote: > The folks at the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) are discussing > (again) where directories for recurring temporary mount points should go. > Recurring temporary mount points are for things like cdroms, floppies, > and digital cameras as well as HD partitions from other OSes (like MS > Windows). Hey, thanks for making the discussion a bit more public :-) > So, please put these in the order of most to least preferred, and say why > you like or dislike any of them. > > - All mount points in / (e.g. /cdrom, /camera, /windows/C) <- current > FreeBSD standard Will become annoying as time goes on and my toothbrush has a remotely mountable filesystem. > - All mount points in /mnt (e.g. /mnt/cdrom, /mnt/camera, /mnt/windows/C) > <- breaks > FreeBSD standard for an empty /mnt Might be workable if there was a /mnt/mnt, but that's so ridiculous I'd be against it as a matter of humour-prevention :-) > - Anyplace at all I don't like this because it makes admin'ing heterogenous networks harder. And because "anyplace at all" often translates to "change locations every few years to accomodate the newest trends in hardware". Ick. Some stability, please. > - Anyplace but /mnt (i.e. what the FHS 2.2 currently specifies) Not touching /mnt is a good idea. The "anyplace" isn't for the same reason as above. > - Anyplace but / or /mnt (e.g. /vol/cdrom, /var/mnt/camera, > /media/windows/C) > (some suggestions have been /media, /mounts, /vol, /var/mnt, > and /var/tmp/removable. Others?) This is better. I prefer a single directory (though not /mnt) in the root directory. /vol and /media both make sense to me, though I prefer /vol because it's less typing (and not all mounts are media ...). There's a bit of a bikeshed here. To help alleviate that, I think that the sub-directories inside of /vol or /media should be undefined. This let's us contain these sorts of mounts to a single location but also let's one decorate as one wishes. All tools need to do is poke around in /vol or /media and they'll find the mounts. -T -- if ( $clue eq 'none' ) read (handbook|faq|man|others) && search (whatis|lists|forum|google) if ( $answer == 0 ) post->question ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
> > One of the ideas behind this new directory of mount points is that some kind > of automounter could then create and delete directories someplace as needed > without affecting anyone. So while not as large in K as a logfile, the > contents of the directory could get pretty large. (Probably a realistic max > of 20 items, but enough to rule out leaving it in /.) > > Just because /var is a symlink to /lump/var shouldn't affect that. Yah, but, it adds just another level of indirection and possible confusion. I would prefer my mounts to be more clear. Hmmm, a place for an automounter to work... Well, that could involve more than just media devices - demand directories of files and home directories or users' scratch directories come to mind - so maybe a better name than media could be discovered. On our Sun systems it is in /opt/home, but I never liked it that way because we also use the name home for another directory someplace else plus opt ends up being a garbage dump for everything they haven't thought out well on Suns. jerry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
On Friday 21 November 2003 6:36, Jerry McAllister wrote: > > Could you also explain to me why you think that /var would be such > > a bad place for this? > > Well, I probably can't give a hard and fast absolute reason, but... > We use /var as a place for directoreis/files that can grow somewhat > unexpectedly and weakly controlled, such as spool and logs, etc. > Because of that, our /var is most often put in some other large > general filesystem with links and doesn't really live in either > root (/) or isn't a root located filesystem, but just a directory in > another filesystem such as /work (or in some recent ones /lump - I > couldn't think of a better name). So, making it the home of mount > points would be rather awkward. > > I suspect that some others do similar things with /var. I have > heard it mentioned. > > I think something similar can be true of other root located file > systems such as /usr, although for those it is more likely that > it just be a directory living within /usr that gets moved and linked. One of the ideas behind this new directory of mount points is that some kind of automounter could then create and delete directories someplace as needed without affecting anyone. So while not as large in K as a logfile, the contents of the directory could get pretty large. (Probably a realistic max of 20 items, but enough to rule out leaving it in /.) Just because /var is a symlink to /lump/var shouldn't affect that. > Generally, I think mount point directories should be as close to > root located as possible with as little intervening stuff that could > possible get shuffled around. > > At first blush, it would sound like /mnt would be a likely place, but > it has been out there too long and been used in too many locally > unique ways that mounts on or in there could create much unnecessary > confusion. I agree. I'd prefer to use /mnt for this, but with the historical usages, it's not really possible. > As far as "any ol' where" goes, that doesn't bother me much, but it > sounds like what is being asked for is a kind of common place that > won't cause problems so vendors and third party writers can go ahead > and make something that will work easily across platforms with the > least pain - and ain't that what everyone whines so much about - the > pain of adding devices, etc.This would be a harmless way to ease > some of that pain. And, anyway, if a standard location is adopted > and if some users want to do it differently on their machines nothing > would stop them from doing whatever they want with their systems. It > would be no worse than if there was no standard and probably easier. Exaclty. > Just lets not break a bunch of stuff to do it. > > Gee, it's nice to be asked about something like this for a change. That's why I wanted to ask. Find out how other people are doing this. Frank ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
> > > > > > It sounds like you think that a new root-level directory should be > > > created for this, and that /media would be OK, but there might be a (yet > > > undiscovered) better name. Is this accurate? > > > > That seems like a pretty good summary. > > > > jerry > > Cool. > Could you also explain to me why you think that /var would be such > a bad place for this? Well, I probably can't give a hard and fast absolute reason, but... We use /var as a place for directoreis/files that can grow somewhat unexpectedly and weakly controlled, such as spool and logs, etc. Because of that, our /var is most often put in some other large general filesystem with links and doesn't really live in either root (/) or isn't a root located filesystem, but just a directory in another filesystem such as /work (or in some recent ones /lump - I couldn't think of a better name). So, making it the home of mount points would be rather awkward. I suspect that some others do similar things with /var. I have heard it mentioned. I think something similar can be true of other root located file systems such as /usr, although for those it is more likely that it just be a directory living within /usr that gets moved and linked. Generally, I think mount point directories should be as close to root located as possible with as little intervening stuff that could possible get shuffled around. At first blush, it would sound like /mnt would be a likely place, but it has been out there too long and been used in too many locally unique ways that mounts on or in there could create much unnecessary confusion. As far as "any ol' where" goes, that doesn't bother me much, but it sounds like what is being asked for is a kind of common place that won't cause problems so vendors and third party writers can go ahead and make something that will work easily across platforms with the least pain - and ain't that what everyone whines so much about - the pain of adding devices, etc.This would be a harmless way to ease some of that pain. And, anyway, if a standard location is adopted and if some users want to do it differently on their machines nothing would stop them from doing whatever they want with their systems. It would be no worse than if there was no standard and probably easier. Just lets not break a bunch of stuff to do it. Gee, it's nice to be asked about something like this for a change. jerry > > Frank > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
On Fri 2003-11-21 (15:41), Frank Murphy wrote: [snip] > - Anyplace at all I'm for this one. I like a purple bikeshed. -- /~\ The ASCII ASCII stupid question, get a EBCDIC ANSI. \ / Ribbon Campaign John Oxley X Against HTMLhttp://oxo.rucus.net/ / \ Email! oxo rucus.ru.ac.za "Personally, I'd rather pay for my freedom than live in a bitmapped, pop-up-happy dungeon like NT." -- Thomas Scoville ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 04:31:19PM +0100, Frank Murphy typed: > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:07:31 -0500 (EST), "Jerry McAllister" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: [...] > > > Anyplace at all > > Now, that is not much of a standard - why bother? > > Well, the idea would be that the standard wouldn't bother. :) Good. My vote goes to "Anyplace at all". I like to build my own bikeshed ;) Ruben ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
> > It sounds like you think that a new root-level directory should be > > created for this, and that /media would be OK, but there might be a (yet > > undiscovered) better name. Is this accurate? > > That seems like a pretty good summary. > > jerry Cool. Could you also explain to me why you think that /var would be such a bad place for this? Frank -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
> > > Anyplace at all > > Now, that is not much of a standard - why bother? > > Well, the idea would be that the standard wouldn't bother. :) > > It sounds like you think that a new root-level directory should be > created for this, and that /media would be OK, but there might be a (yet > undiscovered) better name. Is this accurate? That seems like a pretty good summary. jerry > > Thanks for responding to me, > > Frank > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:07:31 -0500 (EST), "Jerry McAllister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > Good: > > - All mount points in / (e.g. /cdrom, /camera, /windows/C) <- current > > FreeBSD standard > > (Just come up with a nice sounding name for each) The problem isn't what the names of the directories are, but where they belong. The idea is to be flexible enough that any new device that shows up can be put into a sensible directory, not to define nice sounding names for each new device that comes along. That will be decided by distributions and application developers over time (outside of the FHS). > > - Under something like /media/as in /media/cdrom, etc > (except the name media may become obsolete) > > - Anyplace but /mnt (i.e. what the FHS 2.2 currently specifies) > Except not /var/ or /usr or /home or /tmp I understand why not /usr, /home, or /tmp, but why not someplace in /var? These are specifically temporary mount points, and the FreeBSD hier(7) manpage defines /var to be: /var/multi-purpose log, temporary, transient, and spool files > Less Good: > > - All mount points in /mnt (e.g. /mnt/cdrom, /mnt/camera, /mnt/windows/C) > > <- breaks FreeBSD standard for an empty /mnt > > NOT: > These are too long and cumbersom, may contradict other usage > Especially not /var... as it is something else > and /media/windows... is also too MS specific. The "windows" part was just an example which won't be in the standard. You say "especially not /var" because it's something else. What is it, do you think? > > - Anyplace but / or /mnt (e.g. /vol/cdrom, /var/mnt/camera, > > /media/windows/C) > > (some suggestions have been /media, /mounts, /vol, /var/mnt, > > and /var/tmp/removable. Others?) > > Anyplace at all > Now, that is not much of a standard - why bother? Well, the idea would be that the standard wouldn't bother. :) It sounds like you think that a new root-level directory should be created for this, and that /media would be OK, but there might be a (yet undiscovered) better name. Is this accurate? Thanks for responding to me, Frank -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Faster than the air-speed velocity of an unladen european swallow ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
> > ... > > I imagine your answer will be something like "We don't care; do what you > want," but I would like to present the different ideas, and perhaps you > would prefer one. > > So, please put these in the order of most to least preferred, and say why > you like or dislike any of them. > Ok, Here are my addled thoughts: Good: > - All mount points in / (e.g. /cdrom, /camera, /windows/C) <- current > FreeBSD standard (Just come up with a nice sounding name for each) > - Under something like /media/as in /media/cdrom, etc (except the name media may become obsolete) > - Anyplace but /mnt (i.e. what the FHS 2.2 currently specifies) Except not /var/ or /usr or /home or /tmp Less Good: > - All mount points in /mnt (e.g. /mnt/cdrom, /mnt/camera, /mnt/windows/C) > <- breaks > FreeBSD standard for an empty /mnt NOT: These are too long and cumbersom, may contradict other usage Especially not /var... as it is something else and /media/windows... is also too MS specific. > - Anyplace but / or /mnt (e.g. /vol/cdrom, /var/mnt/camera, > /media/windows/C) > (some suggestions have been /media, /mounts, /vol, /var/mnt, > and /var/tmp/removable. Others?) > Anyplace at all Now, that is not much of a standard - why bother? > > Thanks letting us know how you feel about this, > > Frank Murphy > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
Frank Murphy wrote: The folks at the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) are discussing (again) where directories for recurring temporary mount points should go. Recurring temporary mount points are for things like cdroms, floppies, and digital cameras as well as HD partitions from other OSes (like MS Windows). Red Hat started putting these in /mnt (e.g. /mnt/cdrom), but that totally breaks compatibility with the BSDs, which have specified /mnt as an empty directory for ad hoc temporary mounts. SuSE has started putting these in /media, and now folks on the FHS list would like to know what people in the BSDs' communities would prefer. I imagine your answer will be something like "We don't care; do what you want," but I would like to present the different ideas, and perhaps you would prefer one. So, please put these in the order of most to least preferred, and say why you like or dislike any of them. - All mount points in / (e.g. /cdrom, /camera, /windows/C) <- current FreeBSD standard - All mount points in /mnt (e.g. /mnt/cdrom, /mnt/camera, /mnt/windows/C) <- breaks FreeBSD standard for an empty /mnt - Anyplace at all - Anyplace but /mnt (i.e. what the FHS 2.2 currently specifies) - Anyplace but / or /mnt (e.g. /vol/cdrom, /var/mnt/camera, /media/windows/C) (some suggestions have been /media, /mounts, /vol, /var/mnt, and /var/tmp/removable. Others?) Thanks letting us know how you feel about this, Frank Murphy Well, Apple uses /Volumes for all mounts It seems to work pretty well, although the capital letter is an obvious Apple-ism. Adam ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom
The folks at the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) are discussing (again) where directories for recurring temporary mount points should go. Recurring temporary mount points are for things like cdroms, floppies, and digital cameras as well as HD partitions from other OSes (like MS Windows). Red Hat started putting these in /mnt (e.g. /mnt/cdrom), but that totally breaks compatibility with the BSDs, which have specified /mnt as an empty directory for ad hoc temporary mounts. SuSE has started putting these in /media, and now folks on the FHS list would like to know what people in the BSDs' communities would prefer. I imagine your answer will be something like "We don't care; do what you want," but I would like to present the different ideas, and perhaps you would prefer one. So, please put these in the order of most to least preferred, and say why you like or dislike any of them. - All mount points in / (e.g. /cdrom, /camera, /windows/C) <- current FreeBSD standard - All mount points in /mnt (e.g. /mnt/cdrom, /mnt/camera, /mnt/windows/C) <- breaks FreeBSD standard for an empty /mnt - Anyplace at all - Anyplace but /mnt (i.e. what the FHS 2.2 currently specifies) - Anyplace but / or /mnt (e.g. /vol/cdrom, /var/mnt/camera, /media/windows/C) (some suggestions have been /media, /mounts, /vol, /var/mnt, and /var/tmp/removable. Others?) Thanks letting us know how you feel about this, Frank Murphy -- http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely differentÂ… ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
