Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:11:06 -0600 From: Tillman Hodgson <tillman@seekingfire.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD, FHS, and /mnt/cdrom Message-ID: <20031122191106.A17699@seekingfire.com> In-Reply-To: <A816ABA2-1D20-11D8-A72D-003065A20588@mac.com>; from cswiger@mac.com on Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:18:30PM -0500 References: <20031121144116.A712D7E40E@server2.messagingengine.com> <A816ABA2-1D20-11D8-A72D-003065A20588@mac.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Nov 22, 2003 at 02:18:30PM -0500, Charles Swiger wrote:
> Obviously, a standard that says "place mount points anywhere you want"
> isn't very useful. But if you did come up with a standard, who should
> follow it and what would they gain?
I don't want to speak for the FHS, but I do want to point out that such
a standard is indeed useful.
This discussion around a standard location for media mounts is but a
small part of the complete FHS standard. As such, it can legitimately
say "do this", say "do anything but this" or say "not covered by this
standard". All three have distinct meanings and implications. To the
designer of an FHS-compliant distribution, the third means that they
have free reign to do want they want and still claim FHS compliance
(assuming they follow the /rest/ of the standard :-) ).
-T
--
>You can't remotely manage an etch-a-sketch.
Oh, I dunno... I reckon you could do it pretty well. All you'd need is a
beefy vibrating pager attached/built-in to the etch-a-sketch. Instant
remote management...
- A.S.R. quote (Peter da Silva, Peter Williams)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031122191106.A17699>