on Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 07:33 AM +, Alan Chandler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Monday 21 January 2002 10:08 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.21.0229 +0100]:
> ...
> >
> > > Note too, from a system manage
on Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 11:08 AM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > Note three, that the FHS _doesn't_ proscribe inclusion of additional
> > mount points, directories, etc., at root (/). It merely speaks to those
> > directories which are required or optional.
>
> section 3.1
on Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 10:48 PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> also sprach Mark Ferlatte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.22.1919 +0100]:
> > My point is, it's a stupid design decision that (thankfully) is being
> > corrected, but MS isn't the only group of people guilty of this
on Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 01:31 AM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> also sprach Mark Ferlatte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.22.0121 +0100]:
> > You know, MS isn't the only one that does this... the Linux SCSI
> > implementation would assign /dev/sda to the lowest SCSI ID on the cha
Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> True. But passing commandline args and editing fstab is still annoying
> behavior... ideally, if I had a new disk and reboot, _nothing_ should
> change with respect to my old disks.
Then you probably want to put UUID's in your fstab. man fstab.
--
see shy jo
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 05:32:23PM -0500, Rob Mahurin wrote (1.00):
> In this case, wouldn't you just put the new disk at the end of the
> chain (sd[last] rather than sd[first])?
Well, ideally you don't have any kind of order:
/dev/bus/scsi/0/1
would be the device with id 0, partition 1. This i
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 02:04:20PM -0800, Mark Ferlatte wrote:
> True. But passing commandline args and editing fstab is still annoying
> behavior... ideally, if I had a new disk and reboot, _nothing_ should
> change with respect to my old disks.
In this case, wouldn't you just put the new disk a
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 10:48:58PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote (1.00):
> at lilo: linux root=/dev/sdb1
True enough. If you use grub, then it's even less of a problem.
> if sda just moved to sdb. you need to boot anyway, and once you made it
> to the prompt, you change lilo.conf (sorry, left tha
also sprach Mark Ferlatte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.22.1919 +0100]:
> A complete inability to boot because the root partition is now
> elsewhere.
at lilo: linux root=/dev/sdb1
if sda just moved to sdb. you need to boot anyway, and once you made it
to the prompt, you change lilo.conf (sorry, le
On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 01:31:29AM +0100, martin f krafft wrote (1.00):
> > drives you've already had, all of your drive letters would move up by
> > one, 'causing no end of trouble.
>
> a short edit of /etc/fstab
> a possible recreation of a symlink in /dev, or two, or three
>
> what else?
A co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 21 January 2002 10:08 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.21.0229 +0100]:
...
>
> > Note too, from a system management perspective, use of /mnt gives a
> > single point of control for issues such as backups, whi
also sprach Mark Ferlatte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.22.0121 +0100]:
> You know, MS isn't the only one that does this... the Linux SCSI
> implementation would assign /dev/sda to the lowest SCSI ID on the chain,
> so if you went back and added a new drive who's ID was lower than the
> drives you'v
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 06:21:26PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote (1.00):
> - Drive letters (yes you can map around them) restrict you to 26 disks.
> Including remote maps. Driveletters move (often arbitrarially) when
> devices are added and removed.
You know, MS isn't the only one that d
On Monday 21 January 2002 02:08 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.21.0229 +0100]:
> > This directory is provided so that the system administrator may
> > temporarily mount a filesystem as needed. THE CONTENT OF THIS
> > DIRECTORY IS A LOCAL ISSUE AND SH
also sprach Karsten M. Self [2002.01.21.0229 +0100]:
> This directory is provided so that the system administrator may
> temporarily mount a filesystem as needed. THE CONTENT OF THIS
> DIRECTORY IS A LOCAL ISSUE AND SHOULD NOT AFFECT THE MANNER IN WHICH
> ANY PROGRAM IS RUN.
gran
On Mon, 2002-01-21 at 02:07, Mark Blunier wrote:
> However, if a program
> needs to mount a file system temporarily, it needs to know of a
> place that it can assume is 'safe'.
[presuming /mnt is available for that purpose, and doesn't have other
stuff under it]
Unless, of course, another progra
on Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 05:39:13PM -0800, ben ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sunday 20 January 2002 03:51 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> > Assuming you've only got one of something sounds so...Microsoft.
>
> assuming that i've got only one...? sounds like a lame construction of
> whatever point
Previously Karsten M. Self (kmself@ix.netcom.com):
> ...and if you have an arrray of 100 CDRs? Should you have /cdrom[0-99]
> or /mnt/cdrom[0-99]? I'd prefer the latter.
Then do the latter, its your choice. However, if a program
needs to mount a file system temporarily, it needs to know of a
On Sunday 20 January 2002 03:51 pm, Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> Assuming you've only got one of something sounds so...Microsoft.
>
assuming that i've got only one...? sounds like a lame construction of
whatever point you're trying to make. unusual lack of cogency in this post,
karsten.
> Peace.
on Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 06:59:48PM +0100, martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> also sprach Romuald DELAVERGNE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.16.1837 +0100]:
> > Le 2002.01.16 16:17, martin f krafft a écrit :
> > > exaclty. but say you have /mnt/cdrom and /mnt/floppy, and both mounted,
> > >
on Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:35:58AM -0800, ben ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2002 02:06 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> i agree. it was one of the pleasures of discovering debian to find that
> something i had always considered redundant was not employed in the debian
> filesyst
on Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 12:32:54PM -0500, Joey Hess ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> ben wrote:
> > i agree. it was one of the pleasures of discovering debian to find that
> > something i had always considered redundant was not employed in the debian
> > filesystem. why shouldn't floppies and other r
also sprach Romuald DELAVERGNE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.17.0958 +0100]:
> If we respect the FHS like this, you are right.
> But perhaps the FHS is too old on severals points and need to evoluate ?
which is what we're doing AFAIK...
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun
also sprach ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.17.1320 +0100]:
> this is getting really fucking boring. the fhs, just like the government,
> should restrict its intrusion into my life to the point of the most minimal,
> not maximal, necessity. let the fhs set up a criteria based on what is only
>
also sprach Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.17.0541 +0100]:
> Wouldn't this usually go in /var? Say, /var/mirrors?
which would also offend the FHS, section 5.1
"Applications must generally not add directories to the top level of
/var. Such directories should only be added if they h
On Thursday 17 January 2002 04:05 am, Erik Steffl wrote:
> martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.16.2306 +0100]:
> > > if you have more then one temporarily mounted filesystem, where do
> > > you mount it? It does not make sense to have a mount point for
martin f krafft wrote:
>
> also sprach Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.16.2306 +0100]:
> > if you have more then one temporarily mounted filesystem, where do you
> > mount it? It does not make sense to have a mount point for one
> > filesystem but not for few of them.
>
> as others hav
Le 2002.01.16 18:59, martin f krafft a écrit :
> section 3.11: "/mnt : Mount point for a temporarily mounted filesystem"
> ^
>
> it is the mount point for *a* filesystem, not a directory to hold mount
> points for a number of filesystems.
>
If we respect the
On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:34:01 -0500 Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul E Condon wrote:
> > As an example: before I read the FHS, I set up a local mirror of the
> > Debian packages using apt-move. I decided to create a root level
> > directory /mirror and to put in it a directory /mirror/deb
Paul E Condon wrote:
> As an example: before I read the FHS, I set up a local mirror of the
> Debian packages using apt-move. I decided to create a root level
> directory /mirror and to put in it a directory /mirror/debian, but when
> I read FHS, I started wondering if I might be creating problems
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> also sprach Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.17.0056 +0100]:
... Where should "real work" stuff go within the FHS? I wonder...
>
> /home. you should not use anything else for work. everything else is
> system administration, and maint
also sprach Paul E Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.17.0056 +0100]:
> As an example: before I read the FHS, I set up a local mirror of the
> Debian packages using apt-move. I decided to create a root level
> directory /mirror and to put in it a directory /mirror/debian, but when
> I read FHS, I
Craig Dickson wrote:
>
> martin f krafft wrote:
>
> > as others have said and suggested, i also rarely use /mnt. if i need a
> > mount point, i'll quickly create one on the fly. i believe there are
> > even versions of mount out there that don't need an existing directory.
> > i just wrapped moun
martin f krafft wrote:
> as others have said and suggested, i also rarely use /mnt. if i need a
> mount point, i'll quickly create one on the fly. i believe there are
> even versions of mount out there that don't need an existing directory.
> i just wrapped mount and umount it in scripts that crea
also sprach Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.16.2306 +0100]:
> if you have more then one temporarily mounted filesystem, where do you
> mount it? It does not make sense to have a mount point for one
> filesystem but not for few of them.
as others have said and suggested, i also rarely us
martin f krafft wrote:
>
> also sprach Romuald DELAVERGNE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.16.1837 +0100]:
> > Le 2002.01.16 16:17, martin f krafft a écrit :
> > > exaclty. but say you have /mnt/cdrom and /mnt/floppy, and both mounted,
> > > and now you want to make proper use of what /mnt is, and you
- Original Message -
From: "Thomas Sippel - Dau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "martin f krafft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Debian User List" ;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 08:46
Subject: Re: Debian, FHS & /floppy
[snip
also sprach Romuald DELAVERGNE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.16.1837 +0100]:
> Le 2002.01.16 16:17, martin f krafft a écrit :
> > exaclty. but say you have /mnt/cdrom and /mnt/floppy, and both mounted,
> > and now you want to make proper use of what /mnt is, and you mount
> > another partition on /m
Le 2002.01.16 16:17, martin f krafft a écrit :
> exaclty. but say you have /mnt/cdrom and /mnt/floppy, and both mounted,
> and now you want to make proper use of what /mnt is, and you mount
> another partition on /mnt. byebye cdrom, byebye floppy.
>
Yes I know. I just use '/mnt' as a directory wh
also sprach Romuald DELAVERGNE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.16.1501 +0100]:
> Yes but if you want to mount several peripherals at the same moment, '/mnt'
> is not enough.
exaclty. but say you have /mnt/cdrom and /mnt/floppy, and both mounted,
and now you want to make proper use of what /mnt is, an
Le 2002.01.16 14:43, martin f krafft a écrit :
>
> but /mnt *is* the mount point. noone objects if you moung your floppy
> on /mnt, but i object, as do many others, if you mount on /mnt/floppy.
>
Yes but if you want to mount several peripherals at the same moment, '/mnt'
is not enough.
also sprach Romuald DELAVERGNE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.16.1011 +0100]:
> Le 2002.01.15 11:06, martin f krafft a écrit :
> > then, look at section 3.11:
> > "/mnt : Mount point for a temporarily mounted filesystem"
> >
>
> For me, floppy or cdrom are always temporarily mounted.
Le 2002.01.15 11:06, martin f krafft a écrit :
> then, look at section 3.11:
> "/mnt : Mount point for a temporarily mounted filesystem"
>
For me, floppy or cdrom are always temporarily mounted.
Romuald.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 10:15:37AM -0800, ben wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 January 2002 06:30 am, John Hasler wrote:
> [snip]
> > A better fix would be adding a directory to contain mount points for
> > removable filesystems. The FHS should not mention specific types of
> > hardware.
>
> why not?
Beca
On Tuesday 15 January 2002 06:30 am, John Hasler wrote:
[snip]
> A better fix would be adding a directory to contain mount points for
> removable filesystems. The FHS should not mention specific types of
> hardware.
why not?
ben wrote:
> i agree. it was one of the pleasures of discovering debian to find that
> something i had always considered redundant was not employed in the debian
> filesystem. why shouldn't floppies and other removable media be visible at
> the root level?
Conversly, what is so important about
martin f krafft wrote:
> > The main argument against placing such directories under / is that
> > they may (they _will_, IMHO) increase clutter as the number of
> > supported devices increase (e.g. for instance, we _already_ would need
> > /zip, /jaz, /ls120, among others), or the number of device
also sprach Flavio Veloso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.15.1551 +0100]:
> This already was discussed on the FHS-discuss mailing list.
i am sorry, i could not find it in the archives. i am now subscribed,
this shan't happen again...
> The main argument against placing such directories under / is th
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002, martin f krafft wrote:
> i am writing to you, spawned by a thread we are having on the debian-user
> mailing list[1]. it's basically addressing the lack of inclusion of mount
> points like /floppy and /cdrom in the FHS. even though the FHS prohibits
> placing *anything* (direc
Hello,
On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 04:33:16AM -0800, Paul E Condon wrote:
> > > earth make all the Debian-versions the mount-points of removable media
> > > in the root directory instead of /mnt/, which is the required standard
> > i consider /mnt/{cdrom,floppy} a redhat sickness. first of all, please
Paul E Condon writes:
> I think the appearance of prohibition is really a problem of wording in
> the FHS. It might be fixed by adding /cdrom, and /floppy to the list of
> things that may be put in /.
A better fix would be adding a directory to contain mount points for
removable filesystems. The
Dear FHS people,
i am writing to you, spawned by a thread we are having on the debian-user
mailing list[1]. it's basically addressing the lack of inclusion of mount
points like /floppy and /cdrom in the FHS. even though the FHS prohibits
placing *anything* (directories actually) into / which isn't
martin f krafft wrote:
>
> also sprach Andras Simonyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.14.1733 +0100]:
> > I can't help asking this concerning Debian's FHS compliance: why on
> > earth make all the Debian-versions the mount-points of removable media
> > in the root directory instead of /mnt/, which is
On Tuesday 15 January 2002 02:06 am, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Andras Simonyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.14.1733 +0100]:
> > I can't help asking this concerning Debian's FHS compliance: why on
> > earth make all the Debian-versions the mount-points of removable media
> > in the root di
also sprach Andras Simonyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.01.14.1733 +0100]:
> I can't help asking this concerning Debian's FHS compliance: why on
> earth make all the Debian-versions the mount-points of removable media
> in the root directory instead of /mnt/, which is the required standard
> in FHS? O
Hello,
I can't help asking this concerning Debian's FHS compliance: why on
earth make all the Debian-versions the mount-points of removable media
in the root directory instead of /mnt/, which is the required standard
in FHS? Of course I can change /cdrom and /floppy to /mnt/cdrom etc, but
then I ha
56 matches
Mail list logo
