[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles)

From: Jeroen Dekkers
Subject: Re: Hurd FS hierarchy (was Re: LD_LIBRARY_PATH troubles)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 00:02:16 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.27i

On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 05:43:09PM -0500, Richard Kreuter wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 09:36:02PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 03:31:16PM -0500, Richard Kreuter wrote:
> > >
> > >   "On a GNU system, the contents of a directory listing need not
> > > reside on a single volume; therefore directories may be created in
> > > the root directory of a system, though the size of the bootstrap
> > > filesystem should be kept to a minimum."
> > 
> > I don't see why that should be. If somebody wants to have everything
> > on one partition he should just do that. The bootstrap filesystem
> > can also be a cd-rom or DVD for example, which are quite big.
>   I didn't word that correctly.  I'll see if I can make my meaning
> clear.
> > >   I assume I'm using the term 'bootstrap filesystem' correctly here.
> > > Is this term acceptable for policy use?
> > 
> > I'm not sure it's better than "root filesystem".
>   Sometimes the term 'filesystem' means 'hierarchy of files (as in
> "the /usr filesystem")'; sometimes it means 'store containing some
> files' (as in "/dev/hd0s9 is my root filesystem"); sometimes it means
> 'filesystem format' (as in "Second Extended Filesystem").  The first
> two being relevant options here, the term "root filesystem" here might
> mean "the hierarchy of files in the root directory" or maybe "the disk
> partition containing the files needed to boot and restore the system",
> and these two won't need to be the same thing.  The FHS doesn't
> distinguish these because Linux doesn't offer a unionfs, I guess.

Still bootstrap filesystem has the same problem. The problem lies in
the the word filesystem. What about "root partition/store" and "root
>   Some people might want to keep their bootstrap/recovery files on a
> separate store, for the reasons provided in the rationale in FHS 3.1.
> Presumably, we don't want a system that makes this impossible, right?

No, it's still possible.
>   Perhaps I'm not understanding how shadowfs will work.  Suppose the
> root directory contains the union of files on stores a and b.  Will
> the administrator be able to decide, e.g., that write operations
> intended for /usr all go to store b, and otherwise they go to store a?

Write operation to a file just goes to that file on the respective
store. Creating files will be a configure option.
> > I think all server binaries should go in /hurd.
>   Yes, though servers written by unprivileged users can't be put
> there, as a rule.

Nor can they go in root's /bin. However, every user can have it's own
shadowfs so it could be possible.
>   Also, there's the possibility that site administrators might want to
> distinguish servers provided by the distributor from third-party ones.
> Shouldn't the latter be put someplace else (a different store, and
> maybe a different directory), in principle?

Then add a /local/hurd. It doesn't really matter.

Jeroen Dekkers
Jabber supporter - Jabber ID:
Debian GNU supporter -
IRC: jeroen@openprojects

Attachment: pgpIbddhFRBZu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]