On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:50:39PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2014-11-28 10:57, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:55:56AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> On 2014-11-28 10:50, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 10:40:27AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>> On 2014-11-28 00:15, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 09:43:34PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2014-11-27 21:34, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 02:14:38PM -0500, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 07:51:27PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 2014-11-27 19:18, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> According to the filesystem hierarchy standard, /mnt is the
> >>>>>>>>>> standard
> >>>>>>>>>> place for "temporarily mounted filesystems".
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Right, another reason to NOT mess around with it: if something was
> >>>>>>>>> temporarily mounted there, we will create the mountpoint inside that
> >>>>>>>>> filesystem with unforeseeable side effects.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I always read that as "temporarily mounted there by the admin or some
> >>>>>>>> other human". Certainly not automatic mounts by software. There is
> >>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> reason /media and such exists on many distributins.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I would not venture an "always", autofs for instance, used to mount
> >>>>>>> things under /mnt. and /media has not always existed either, we used
> >>>>>>> /mnt/cdrom.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> FHS on /mnt purpose:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "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."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think this makes it crystal clear that Xenomai is not supposed to
> >>>>>> touch it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just to add another argument. I just asked a friend who is a
> >>>>> professional sysadmin. He creates directory under /mnt and mount
> >>>>> things under these directories. So, I am not sure the standard is
> >>>>> even applied by the people who should use it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you read on the last site I sent, under the /media article:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Amid much controversy and consternation on the part of system and
> >>>>> network administrators a directory containing mount points for
> >>>>> removable media has now been created. Funnily enough, it has been
> >>>>> named /media.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Are you sure, 100% sure, that every Xenomai user expects to be able
> >>>>> to use /mnt as a mount point? Or that they will create directories
> >>>>> under /mnt like everybody has been doing since Linux exists?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm both absolutely sure that a) has to be left alone by Xenomai because
> >>>> of requirements of the FHS and the way /mnt is used and b) we should try
> >>>> hard to avoid creating temporary dirs in persistent filesystems.
> >>>
> >>> This is ridiculous. Because the standard changed, and one
> >>> distribution, Debian, decided to follow the new standard, which
> >>> seems to be not widely accepted, and even controversial, you want to
> >>> impose what Debian does to everybody. The distribution I use has
> >>> mount points under /mnt. So, why following Debian and not the
> >>> distribution I use, and what sysadmin have been doing for ages?
> >>>
> >>> You want the mount point to be somewhere else? Fine, put a symbolic
> >>> link.
> >>>
> >>> mkdir /run/xenomai
> >>> ln -s /run/xenomai /mnt/xenomai
> >>
> >> Again, this is not acceptible as /mnt changes all the time and exposes
> >> various remote filesystems which will hide that link.
> >
> > You are missing the point. Yes, Debian does that, but not all
> > distribution. Other distributions do not do that.
> >
>
> SUSE, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Red Hat - it's already standard. But I will change
> my patch to /var/run to avoid surprises with other/older distros.
Again, using /mnt/xenomai does not break any distribution following
the standard.
Let us try things another way, the possibilities we have are:
- /mnt/xenomai: a solution that used to be standard but ceased to be
with the FHS which did not provide a standard replacement, but does
not break any distribution
- /run/xenomai: a solution that relies on the existence on the /run
directory, which is not standard, but is going to be, maybe.
- /var/run/xenomai: a solution which does not violate any version of
the standard, but is not standard either, does not make clear that
the directory is a mount point (which /mnt does), breaks the
existing documentation, breaks the existing usages of Xenomai 3, and
is longer to type.
So, I really find that /mnt/xenomai is the best compromise. There is
no standard solution, at least /mnt/xenomai is a solution that used
to be standard.
--
Gilles.
_______________________________________________
Xenomai mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai
