[arch-general] change in mount behaviour?

[Tom Gundersen]

Heiko,

Maybe I (or others) were unclear in our explanations, but at least you
should have had a look at the software you are claiming to be buggy
(you would quickly see that there is no problem).

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Heiko Baums <lists at baums-on-web.de> wrote:
>> for as long as i remember anyway, the DE will often mount stuff there
>> automatically, ergo it's not safe to put manual mount points there.
>> /mnt is specifically reserved for admin, so /mnt/media is safe.
>
> This is not true. If this is what some DEs are doing, than you should
> file a bug report to the DE's upstream.

This is what all DEs I'm aware of have been doing for a long time.
They create mountpoints and mount removable media under /media, which
is perfectly in line with the FHS.

> There's a Linux Filesystem Hierarchy Standard which says that /media is
> meant for removable media and /mnt is for temporarily mounted
> filesystems. Whatever the difference between an optical media and a
> temporary filesystem may be.

"Whatever the difference [...] may be", this should give you a hint
that there is something you are missing...

> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#MEDIAMOUNTPOINT
>
> I know that Lennart Poettering doesn't care much about Linux standards
> and likes to declare his non working crap as standard. But fortunately
> he is not a standardization authority.

Please stop this nonsense. First of all, the way in which /media is
(and has been) used has nothing to do with Lennart. Secondly, the FHS
has not been breached in this instance. Thirdly, anyone who knows
anything about these matters agree that the FHS is outdated and needs
to be rewritten (and that until it is, we should not care too much
about it).

> So if a software doesn't follow those FHS you should file a bug report
> to upstream.

This is a waste of time. The upstream developers are well aware of the
FHS. If their apps violate it, it is intentional.

-t