On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 05:43:09PM -0500, Richard Kreuter wrote: > On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 09:36:02PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 03:31:16PM -0500, Richard Kreuter wrote: > > > > > > "On a GNU system, the contents of a directory listing need not > > > reside on a single volume; therefore directories may be created in > > > the root directory of a system, though the size of the bootstrap > > > filesystem should be kept to a minimum." > > > > I don't see why that should be. If somebody wants to have everything > > on one partition he should just do that. The bootstrap filesystem > > can also be a cd-rom or DVD for example, which are quite big. > > I didn't word that correctly. I'll see if I can make my meaning > clear. > > > > I assume I'm using the term 'bootstrap filesystem' correctly here. > > > Is this term acceptable for policy use? > > > > I'm not sure it's better than "root filesystem". > > Sometimes the term 'filesystem' means 'hierarchy of files (as in > "the /usr filesystem")'; sometimes it means 'store containing some > files' (as in "/dev/hd0s9 is my root filesystem"); sometimes it means > 'filesystem format' (as in "Second Extended Filesystem"). The first > two being relevant options here, the term "root filesystem" here might > mean "the hierarchy of files in the root directory" or maybe "the disk > partition containing the files needed to boot and restore the system", > and these two won't need to be the same thing. The FHS doesn't > distinguish these because Linux doesn't offer a unionfs, I guess.
Still bootstrap filesystem has the same problem. The problem lies in the the word filesystem. What about "root partition/store" and "root directory"? > Some people might want to keep their bootstrap/recovery files on a > separate store, for the reasons provided in the rationale in FHS 3.1. > Presumably, we don't want a system that makes this impossible, right? No, it's still possible. > Perhaps I'm not understanding how shadowfs will work. Suppose the > root directory contains the union of files on stores a and b. Will > the administrator be able to decide, e.g., that write operations > intended for /usr all go to store b, and otherwise they go to store a? Write operation to a file just goes to that file on the respective store. Creating files will be a configure option. > > I think all server binaries should go in /hurd. > > Yes, though servers written by unprivileged users can't be put > there, as a rule. Nor can they go in root's /bin. However, every user can have it's own shadowfs so it could be possible. > Also, there's the possibility that site administrators might want to > distinguish servers provided by the distributor from third-party ones. > Shouldn't the latter be put someplace else (a different store, and > maybe a different directory), in principle? Then add a /local/hurd. It doesn't really matter. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
msg01830/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
