>From the ChageLog dated Sun Mar 26 20:42:28 CST 2006, for the package
a/aaa_base-10.2.0-noarch-4.tgz. It talked about the /media and /svc
directory not being used.

My question, is where, is this standard originating from? Is it coming
from the LSB to specify the heirarchy (sp?) of the file system? I
searched around in the LSB, and I couldn't find it talking about
directory structure in this particular instance.

Where is the "standard" for the /media and /svc directory coming from?

Thanks

Mike

On 30 Mar 2006 10:22:08 -0800, "MikeDawg" <mikedawg@gmail.com> wrote:

>Where is the "standard" for the /media and /svc directory coming from?

The biggie distros?

/media is SUSE, I think -- along with a stupid auto-mounter, dunno
about /svc

I agree with the comment about not polluting /, and end-user may
always install symlinks.

Grant.
--
Memory fault -- brain fried

On 2006-03-30, MikeDawg <mikedawg@gmail.com> wrote:
> My question, is where, is this standard originating from?

The Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) 2.3:
http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html

> Where is the "standard" for the /media and /svc directory coming from?

I guess that "/svc" is a typo, it should be "/svr". Anyway, both "/media"
and "/svr" seem completely useless to me. But some distributions use
"/media" for automounting. The rationale, according to the FHS is:

"Historically there have been a number of other different places used to
mount removeable media such as /cdrom, /mnt or /mnt/cdrom. Placing the
mount points for all removeable media directly in the root directory
would potentially result in a large number of extra directories in /.
Although the use of subdirectories in /mnt as a mount point has recently
been common, it conflicts with a much older tradition of using /mnt
directly as a temporary mount point."

-- Daniel

On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 22:56:09 +0000 (UTC), Daniel de Kok <daniel@daffy.nowhere> wrote:

>"...
>Although the use of subdirectories in /mnt as a mount point has recently
>been common, it conflicts with a much older tradition of using /mnt
>directly as a temporary mount point."

I been happy with /mnt/hd for casual partitions (including external HDD),
/mnt/cdrom, /mnt/zip for years, at least its optional change proposed for
Slackware. Nothing stops me using /mnt as casual mountpoint either, so
what if the subdirectories under /mnt are 'hidden' for a little while?

Using /media for casual mounts could be argued to have the same problem,
say one wants to mount their camera and download / write images direct
to cdrom / USB stick / CompactFlash? Same issue, different mountpoint
names.

Grant.
--
Memory fault -- brain fried

MikeDawg wrote:
> My question, is where, is this standard originating from? Is it coming
> from the LSB to specify the heirarchy (sp?) of the file system? I
> searched around in the LSB, and I couldn't find it talking about
> directory structure in this particular instance.

http://www.ask.com/web?q=site%3Alinuxbase.org+media+srv

So I think they decided this "standard". But they also decided RPM as
standard package management system *LOL*.

CU

Manuel

On 2006-03-31, Grant <bugsplatter@gmail.com> wrote:
> I been happy with /mnt/hd for casual partitions (including external HDD),
> /mnt/cdrom, /mnt/zip for years, at least its optional change proposed for
> Slackware.

Same thing here.

> Using /media for casual mounts could be argued to have the same problem,
> say one wants to mount their camera and download / write images direct
> to cdrom / USB stick / CompactFlash? Same issue, different mountpoint
> names.

They automatically create entries in /media (e.g. /media/usbdisk3,
/media/cdrom2). HAL (with fstab-sync) or the desktop environment takes
over the role of the system administrator. It is probably ok for users
who don't want to know about mounting. I personally find it kind of
frightening to have a program altering fstab, or allowing unprivileged
users to mount devices.

-- Daniel

On Fri, 31 Mar 2006 11:42:01 +1100, Grant wrote:

>>Although the use of subdirectories in /mnt as a mount point has recently
>>been common, it conflicts with a much older tradition of using /mnt
>>directly as a temporary mount point."
>
> I been happy with /mnt/hd for casual partitions (including external HDD),
> /mnt/cdrom, /mnt/zip for years, at least its optional change proposed for
> Slackware. Nothing stops me using /mnt as casual mountpoint either, so
> what if the subdirectories under /mnt are 'hidden' for a little while?
>
> Using /media for casual mounts could be argued to have the same problem,
> say one wants to mount their camera and download / write images direct
> to cdrom / USB stick / CompactFlash? Same issue, different mountpoint
> names.

The (Slackware-based) STX distro uses the belt-and-braces approach. It
mounts USB keys under /media/sda1 (say) as well as /media/pendrive
simultaneously.

--
mark south; echo znexfbhgu2000@lnubb.pb.hx|tr a-z n-za-m
"I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic
globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable."
-- Gilbert & Sullivan, The Mikado

Manuel Reimer wrote:

> MikeDawg wrote:
>> My question, is where, is this standard originating from? Is it coming
>> from the LSB to specify the heirarchy (sp?) of the file system? I
>> searched around in the LSB, and I couldn't find it talking about
>> directory structure in this particular instance.
>
> http://www.ask.com/web?q=site%3Alinuxbase.org+media+srv
>
> So I think they decided this "standard". But they also decided RPM as
> standard package management system *LOL*.

LSB is not the source of this

FHS is http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html

Pat has tried to keep within the confines of the FHS in the past but he
seems to be ignoring it these days.

Wild Wizard wrote:
> FHS is http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html

> Pat has tried to keep within the confines of the FHS in the past but he
> seems to be ignoring it these days.

I think Pat is right at this point.

If he adds the symlinks he is also compatible with the FHS standards.

CU

Manuel

I too agree with Pat regarding not polluting /, but how would having
symlinks be any different?
Instead of a /media you have a ~media->(to where ever)
Isn't this still polutting the root?
Please explain this...
thx