Simon Epsteyn wrote: > Remote > There is no need for /mnt/remote type structure, since you can either > use /mnt/tmp/N or integrate it into your normal tree
Hang on... I thought the point of /mnt/tmp was so THAT dir was to be used as a temp mount point, mounting something under this would not be consistant. > > It may be usefull to have a per user $HOME/mnt/remote for private > NFS and/or SMB mounts (ala Network Neighborhood) > > i.e. > $HOME/mnt/remote/<hostname>/<volume name> > > Possibly without "remote/" > > Possibly adding "<domain>/" before "<hostname"> And what if $HOME is mounted from a remote server (root squashed even)? I would encourage the user SMB mounts and such to also be on the local filesystem with symlinks in the users home directory (if desired). > > Functionality > This functionlity is NOT provided by fstab or mtab, since that > would be platform dependand (which entry is the CD-ROM?, some > systems use vold/mediad -- not in fstab) > > /mnt/ > tmp/ -> tmp.d/0 > tmp.d/ > 0/ > 1/ I vote for just /mnt/tmp here. no tree. > floppy/ -> removable/floppy.d/0 > zip/ -> removable/zip.d/0 > cdrom/ -> removable/cdrom.d/0 > dvd/ -> removable/dvd.d/0 > removable/ > floppy/ -> floppy.d/0 > floppy.d/ > 0/ > 1/ > zip/ -> zip.d/0 > zip.d/ > 0/ > 1/ > cdrom/ -> cdrom.d/0 > cdrom.d/ > 0/ > <volume name 0>/ -> 0 > 1/ > <volume name 1>/ -> 1 > dvd/ -> dvd.d/0 > dvd.d/ > 0/ > <volume name 0>/ -> 0 > 1/ > <volume name 1>/ -> 1 > fixed/ > windows/ -> windows.d/0 > windows.d/ > 0/ > c/ -> 0 > <fat label 0>/ -> 0 > 1/ > d/ -> 1 > <fat label 1>/ -> 1 > macos/ -> macos.d/0 > macos.d/ > 0/ > <hfs label>/ -> 0 > <other os>/ -> <other os>.d/0 > <other os>/.d > 0/ > 1/ I prefer similar to the simpler notation proposed below of just /mnt/cdrom0 /mnt/dvd0 etc. I also would challenge the notation of "temporary" vs "permanent" on many of these. Say the windows partition for example. X may be set up to read tt fonts from there, but the user may then desire to unmount it anyway so that the partition can be used from wine/dosemu/vmware and the like as a native partition. Is this "temporary" or "permanent"? One more bit, say I have win98 and winNT on my system, and they both are installed on different drives. Now I have /mnt/win95/c and /mnt/winnt/c or similar. What happens when I have them both installed on the same partition? ouch. The only thing that is not a matter of opinion is the type of media. As ugly as it may be, I would like to see /mnt/sdb4 and the like. If distros want to create symlinks to these as /mnt/c -> /mnt/sdb4 let them hack away. ;-) I really wish we would loose the foo.d format entirely. Surely there are better ways to determine directory is a directory? Surely haveing both foo and foo.d in any situation is confusing and therefore not desireable? Therefore if foo will never exist, I see no reason to name the existing directory foo.d at all. > > > On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Johannes Poehlmann wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > It is recommended (not required !) that /mounts is structured this way: > > > > > > /mounts--+ > > > +-cdrom0 > > > +-cdrom1 > > > +-cdrom... > > > | > > > +-cdburner0 > > > +-cdburner1 > > > +-cdburner.. > > > | > > > +-dvd0 > > > +-dvd1 > > > +-dvd..... > > > | > > > +-floppy0 > > > +-floppy1 > > > +-floppy... > > > | > > > +-other removable media..... > > > | > > > +-dos-+ > > > | +--c > > > | +--d > > > | +--etc.... > > > | > > > +--nt-+ > > > | +--c > > > | +--d > > > | +--etc.... > > > | > > > +--other classes of alien partitions........ > > > > > > All theses items are optional especially for non existing drives/ > > > partitions. > > > > Hmm... It would seem logical that *permanent* mount points should be > > segregated from *temporary* ones... > > > > A physical hard disk can become a working part of the filesystem, in > > essence a seamless part of the whole. > > > > A removable drive, whatever the media, is of a different nature, and > > exists at points where the file system intersects with the wider > > world... iyswim. > > > > I'd have thought real partitions are going to be rarely changed, and > > fairly stable - say you dual boot with windows, you're likely to have a > > set, stable place where the disk is linked, and it won't change. > > > > Why can't something like: > > > > /mount > > | > > +-local-+ > > | +--dos_c or whatever > > | +--etc... > > | > > +-net-+ > > | +--remote sites - nfs, smb, etc > > | > > +-removable-+ > > +-floppy[0-n] > > +-cdrom[0-n] > > +-dvd[0-n] > > > > and so on? > > > > This way, actual *fixed* mount points get proper names, and floppy drives > > are "visibly" external. > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Tim Riker - http://rikers.org/ - short SIGs! <g> All I need to know I could have learned in Kindergarten ... if I'd just been paying attention.
