[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Another proposal for mount points (Was: Re: PROPOSAL for FHS revised: Mount points for CDs, floppies and alien OS partitions.])



Simon Epsteyn wrote:
> Remote
>         There is no need for /mnt/remote type structure, since you can either
>         use /mnt/tmp/N or integrate it into your normal tree

Hang on... I thought the point of /mnt/tmp was so THAT dir was to be
used as a temp mount point, mounting something under this would not be
consistant.

> 
>         It may be usefull to have a per user $HOME/mnt/remote for private
>         NFS and/or SMB mounts (ala Network Neighborhood)
> 
>         i.e.
>                 $HOME/mnt/remote/<hostname>/<volume name>
> 
>         Possibly without "remote/"
> 
>         Possibly adding "<domain>/" before "<hostname">

And what if $HOME is mounted from a remote server (root squashed even)?
I would encourage the user SMB mounts and such to also be on the local
filesystem with symlinks in the users home directory (if desired).

> 
> Functionality
>         This functionlity is NOT provided by fstab or mtab, since that
>         would be platform dependand (which entry is the CD-ROM?, some
>         systems use vold/mediad -- not in fstab)
> 
> /mnt/
>    tmp/ -> tmp.d/0
>    tmp.d/
>       0/
>       1/

I vote for just /mnt/tmp here. no tree.

>    floppy/ -> removable/floppy.d/0
>    zip/ -> removable/zip.d/0
>    cdrom/ -> removable/cdrom.d/0
>    dvd/ -> removable/dvd.d/0
>    removable/
>       floppy/ -> floppy.d/0
>       floppy.d/
>          0/
>          1/
>       zip/ -> zip.d/0
>       zip.d/
>          0/
>          1/
>       cdrom/ -> cdrom.d/0
>       cdrom.d/
>          0/
>          <volume name 0>/ -> 0
>          1/
>          <volume name 1>/ -> 1
>       dvd/ -> dvd.d/0
>       dvd.d/
>          0/
>          <volume name 0>/ -> 0
>          1/
>          <volume name 1>/ -> 1
>    fixed/
>       windows/ -> windows.d/0
>       windows.d/
>          0/
>          c/ -> 0
>          <fat label 0>/ -> 0
>          1/
>          d/ -> 1
>          <fat label 1>/ -> 1
>       macos/ -> macos.d/0
>       macos.d/
>          0/
>          <hfs label>/ -> 0
>       <other os>/ -> <other os>.d/0
>       <other os>/.d
>          0/
>          1/

I prefer similar to the simpler notation proposed below of just
/mnt/cdrom0 /mnt/dvd0 etc.

I also would challenge the notation of "temporary" vs "permanent" on
many of these. Say the windows partition for example. X may be set up to
read tt fonts from there, but the user may then desire to unmount it
anyway so that the partition can be used from wine/dosemu/vmware and the
like as a native partition. Is this "temporary" or "permanent"?

One more bit, say I have win98 and winNT on my system, and they both are
installed on different drives. Now I have /mnt/win95/c and /mnt/winnt/c
or similar. What happens when I have them both installed on the same
partition? ouch.

The only thing that is not a matter of opinion is the type of media. As
ugly as it may be, I would like to see /mnt/sdb4 and the like. If
distros want to create symlinks to these as /mnt/c -> /mnt/sdb4 let them
hack away. ;-)

I really wish we would loose the foo.d format entirely. Surely there are
better ways to determine directory is a directory? Surely haveing both
foo and foo.d in any situation is confusing and therefore not
desireable? Therefore if foo will never exist, I see no reason to name
the existing directory foo.d at all.

> 
> > On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Johannes Poehlmann wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > It is recommended (not required !) that /mounts is structured this way:
> > >
> > > /mounts--+
> > >      +-cdrom0
> > >      +-cdrom1
> > >      +-cdrom...
> > >          |
> > >          +-cdburner0
> > >          +-cdburner1
> > >          +-cdburner..
> > >          |
> > >          +-dvd0
> > >          +-dvd1
> > >          +-dvd.....
> > >          |
> > >      +-floppy0
> > >      +-floppy1
> > >      +-floppy...
> > >          |
> > >          +-other removable media.....
> > >          |
> > >          +-dos-+
> > >          |     +--c
> > >          |     +--d
> > >          |     +--etc....
> > >          |
> > >          +--nt-+
> > >          |     +--c
> > >          |     +--d
> > >          |     +--etc....
> > >          |
> > >          +--other classes of alien partitions........
> > >
> > > All theses items are optional especially for non existing drives/ partitions.
> >
> > Hmm... It would seem logical that *permanent* mount points should be
> > segregated from *temporary* ones...
> >
> > A physical hard disk can become a working part of the filesystem, in
> > essence a seamless part of the whole.
> >
> > A removable drive, whatever the media, is of a different nature, and
> > exists at points where the file system intersects with the wider
> > world... iyswim.
> >
> > I'd have thought real partitions are going to be rarely changed, and
> > fairly stable - say you dual boot with windows, you're likely to have a
> > set, stable place where the disk is linked, and it won't change.
> >
> > Why can't something like:
> >
> > /mount
> >   |
> >   +-local-+
> >   |       +--dos_c or whatever
> >   |       +--etc...
> >   |
> >   +-net-+
> >   |     +--remote sites - nfs, smb, etc
> >   |
> >   +-removable-+
> >               +-floppy[0-n]
> >               +-cdrom[0-n]
> >               +-dvd[0-n]
> >
> > and so on?
> >
> > This way, actual *fixed* mount points get proper names, and floppy drives
> > are "visibly" external.
> 
> --
> 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-spec-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org

-- 
Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs! <g>
All I need to know I could have learned in Kindergarten
... if I'd just been paying attention.



Reply to: