On Mon 15 Jan 2024 at 18:27:14 (-0500), gene heskett wrote: > On 1/15/24 14:57, David Wright wrote: > > On Sun 14 Jan 2024 at 20:15:16 (-0500), gene heskett wrote: > > > On 1/14/24 18:57, Felix Miata wrote: > > > > gene heskett composed on 2024-01-14 18:39 (UTC-0500): > > > > > Felix Miata wrote: > > > > > > My point was entirely about suitability of /mnt/ for fstab entries. > > > > > And my point is that for a one time copy, its was handy. I didn't have > > > > > to mkdir a mount point for it.
Obviously you mean something different from what would be a conventional interpretation of those two sentences. > > > > /mnt/ is intended for one-time copies, just the ticket for that > > > > particular > > > > exercise. > > > I don't recall ever mounting something to /mnt, always to a subdir in > > > mount. > > > > How did you mount to a subdir in /mnt without making a mount point? > > Your two statements appear contradictory. > > On this particular ball of rock and water at least, called a planet in > most circles, you "mkdir /mnt/whatever". You don't have to mount > directly on /mnt and I don't think I ever have. Do it 50 times with > your own version of "whatever", same with any path to anyplace on the > system. Nothing special about it. And I've never created any mount point under /mnt. For a one time copy, /mnt is handy; always there, I don't have to mkdir at all. Cheers, David.
