Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 14:57:54 +0300 From: juho@kepa.fi To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HAL on FreeBSD Message-ID: <1115985474.4284964284f0f@mail.kepa.fi> In-Reply-To: <20050511174624.i1qju123w48wcgo0@netchild.homeip.net> References: <4281C469.2090102@kepa.fi> <20050511102352.J27884@shumai.marcuscom.com> <20050511174624.i1qju123w48wcgo0@netchild.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>: > Joe Marcus Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> wrote: > > > FreeBSD does have /mnt. Subdirectories under there might be a good idea. > > For example, /mnt/media/* or /mnt/hal/media/*. I think this would be > > easier to find that something buried multiple levels deep. > > Some thoughts: > - /mnt/hal/ suggests (at least to those which know what it may be) that > there are mountpoints which are controled by something. > - Do have /mnt/hal/media/* and /mnt/media/* to be that deep? > - Some (a lot) docs refer to mounting someting to /mnt or /mnt2, using > /mnt/XXX would result in unwanted behavior if someone follows > those docs. As far as I understand it, /mnt is a wrong place. As you say, it's intended for temporary mounts by system administrator. Whatever you create there might or might not exist in near future. Breaking something like this doesn't sound like a good idea. > - Does it hurt to add a new directory to the rootfs and to hier(7) > for the purpose of algorithm controled mounting? I don't think it does, but who decides about something like this? Not me for sure. It sounds like the best choice, but hm..? Well, it doesn't need to be decided yet, as the it will still take some time before the hal port is ready. Juho ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP at KEPA.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1115985474.4284964284f0f>