On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:50:27 +0100 Tom Gundersen email@example.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Kevin Chadwick firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Should /bin and /sbin contain all the statically built execs to increase the reliability of single user mode.
Nah, we don't really build static binaries, and /usr must be available even in single user mode. IMHO /bin and /sbin are no longer useful.
I see udev creating directories in /media as a problem for the goal of read only systems, unless it is on it's own partition. Personally I use udev rules to mount to /mnt/usb0, /mnt/usb1 etc. making it consistent and logical to human users and sudoers, not to mention the problem of stupidly long named directories on occasion making escaping required or copying on the commandline.
This can be solved by making /media a tmpfs and require its subdirs to be recreated on demand (as systemd does).
Or a bind-mount from /var/media or such... I wonder though shouldn't it be implemented in initscripts similar to /tmp? Because currently enabling read-only / will require adding a /media stanza to fstab.
udev should never, ever mount stuff itself. This is dangerous and explicitly not supported. Consider using systemd, udisks or another daemon for this purpose. For more info about this, see the recent discussion on the linux-hotplug mailinglist.
Anyway here's some food for thought you might find interesting about FHS compared to the OpenBSD way of doing things. The thread has some other useful thoughts too.
Thanks, that's an interesting read. Notice how a majority of his concerns would go away if /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin all pointed to /usr/bin. That whole thread very clearly illustrates the challenges the FHS faces.