From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <54A69BFA.7060405@web.de> Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 14:24:10 +0100 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <54A672BA.8090209@web.de> <54A679D5.20903@xenomai.org> <54A67CD1.10103@web.de> <54A69D42.2010408@xenomai.org> In-Reply-To: <54A69D42.2010408@xenomai.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Xenomai] [Xenomai-git] Philippe Gerum: copperplate: add configuration tunable for registry moint point List-Id: Discussions about the Xenomai project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Philippe Gerum Cc: Xenomai On 2015-01-02 14:29, Philippe Gerum wrote: > On 01/02/2015 12:11 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2015-01-02 11:58, Philippe Gerum wrote: >>> On 01/02/2015 11:28 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> On 2015-01-01 18:43, xenomai-git-request@xenomai.org wrote: >>>>> Module: xenomai-3 >>>>> Branch: next >>>>> Commit: d351f712bc9b03d621b454b55fe3e46a0000294a >>>>> URL: http://git.xenomai.org/?p=3Dxenomai-3.git;a=3Dcommit;h=3Dd351= f712bc9b03d621b454b55fe3e46a0000294a >>>>> >>>>> Author: Philippe Gerum >>>>> Date: Thu Jan 1 18:15:36 2015 +0100 >>>>> >>>>> copperplate: add configuration tunable for registry moint point >>>>> >>>>> --enable-registry[=3D/registry-mount-point] >>>>> >>>>> Defaults to /mnt/xenomai. >>>> >>>> Do we really have to leave this as default? Then at least the debian >>>> rules must be fixed to use a FHS-conforming path for distributed packa= ges. >>>> >>> >>> I don't care about which default is picked, really. I would agree with >>> both options equally, i.e. using /mnt or /var/run, since /mnt has been a >>> sensible and documented root for temporary mount points for ages in the >>> *nix world, although I find /var/run a reasonable choice for >>> non-persistent mount points as well. >> >> As I explained (and I wasn't alone with this view), this is not a matter >> of taste but standard compliance: FHS requires us - as soon as we >> consider Xenomai being part of the platform and not some self-written >> admin script - to keep away from /mnt. You would have a hard time >> finding a distro package that writes to /mnt without being explicitly >> told by the admin. > = > FHS 2.3 required volatile data to go to /var/run, and then Debian and > others found out that it might not be the most usable choice, and went > for /run+symlink to cope with legacy, until FHS 3.0 validates this > arbitrary change eventually. > = > So, I'm ok with FHS, but in that particular case, FHS has been wrong for > years it seems. I'd rather discuss about usability then. The kind of > issues I'd like to see people discussing instead of going ballistic for > a freaking mount point would rather be: > = > /var/run means tmpfs, which implies rw. > /mnt means root fs, which might imply ro in some embedded cases. Thanks for reminding, that was one of my initial points in the discussion. It derives from the ideas of the standard about the usage of those mount points. Jan > = > x3 applications can mention the registry mount point to be used > dynamically when starting up, so keeping /mnt would request ro fs users > to either select a different mount point dynamically (e.g. to /var/run), > or have /mnt/xenomai persistent in their read-only root fs. > = > It could be acceptable, or maybe there are arguments against requiring > this. Please discuss about usability issues first and foremost. > = -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: