[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