[fhs-discuss] minor issues
Jon Dowland
jon+fhs-discuss at dowland.me
Mon May 16 09:07:20 PDT 2011
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 11:34:57PM +0000, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> 5) Emphasis that "/mnt" is for a _single_ _temporary_ mountpoint...i.e.:
> - nothing that should go to /etc/fstab
> - not having subdirectories (does cgconfig/cgred in Linux still use this?)
FHS 2.3 already states that the contents of /mnt is a local issue. Therefore,
nothing FHS complaint should rely on anything being anywhere inside /mnt. Why
make this stronger?
> 6) Relax unnecessarily strict requirements:
> "/sbin" requires to have all fsck.* and mkfs.* tools.
> - IMHO it neither makes sense to restrict them to /sbin (but also allow
> /bin, because nowadays there may be filesystems that are user-centric (and
> not device-centric),... e.g. on could think of things like mkfs.gmail,
> which automatically registers a google account and mounts it in Linux via
> FUSE.
FUSE is an interesting case. I think such "user filesystems" are not under the
scope of the FHS, and where it mandates mkfs.* for an installed *subsystem* at
present, that should be system-wide filesystem subsystem -- perhaps the text
needs clarification.
> - It also does not make to keep it away from the "/usr/bin" or "/usr/sbin"...
> as many of those filesystems are in no way required to boot or to run the
> system.
What filesystems are necessary to boot the system are largely dependent on
local decision-making. How can the FHS know whether you need ext3 or reiser4?
At best it might know that you don't need gmailfs (see above)
--
Jon Dowland
More information about the fhs-discuss
mailing list