Filesystem hierarchy standard - questions about /boot

Posted May 6, 2011 2:16 UTC (Fri) by pr1268 (guest, #24648)
In reply to: Filesystem hierarchy standard - questions about /boot by dlang
Parent article: Filesystem hierarchy standard 3.0 process begins

> Just make sure that you understand _why_ you are violating the standard, (and if you are doing this for anything beyond your personal systems, document what you are doing strange and why), then go on with life.

Funny thing was, I didn't think I was violating any such standard with the separate /boot partition. I openly admit to being ignorant of the FHS, or even the mere existence of such a standard (well, not totally—I might've read about the FHS some time ago). Which sort of explains why I asked here.

> I think that there is a lot of good thinking in your decision. I'm not sure I would go to that much effort, but I won't say that you are wrong to do so.

Thank you (and anselm) for your words of encouragement.

> (I am also someone who ops to use lilo instead of grub)

I use LILO because I run Slackware on my computers (and Slackware's philosophy is also "if it ain't broke, then no need to fix it" [and LILO still works great despite its antiquity]).

> One of the big pains to deal with in running production systems is when the distro and the upstream disagree on where a critical package lives (or where it's config files, or loadable modules, etc live). This makes it unnecessarily hard to upgrade to a custom built version of the package when your installation needs something different from the distro default.

Don't I know it! (My experience at trying to install 3rd-party ProFTP and PAM/MySQL RPMs onto a CentOS 5.1 box several years ago turned into a nightmare [CentOS's own VSFTP implementation was out of the question as it didn't support the authentication scheme], but I digress...).

Back to the FHS-2.3 document, I would like to express gratitude at its enlightening me on the difference between /mnt and /media, and also for explaining the rationale for separating /bin and /lib from their /usr counterparts.

Finally, to add to the discussion/debate above, I do think that (a) the seven years have elapsed because (again) it wasn't broken and no need to fix it, and (b) creating a /run directory obviates the need for a standards update. Obviously. </sarcasm>

Filesystem hierarchy standard - questions about /boot

Posted May 6, 2011 3:38 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

>> Just make sure that you understand _why_ you are violating the standard, (and if you are doing this for anything beyond your personal systems, document what you are doing strange and why), then go on with life.

>Funny thing was, I didn't think I was violating any such standard with the separate /boot partition. I openly admit to being ignorant of the FHS, or even the mere existence of such a standard (well, not totallyI might've read about the FHS some time ago). Which sort of explains why I asked here.

well, if nothing else you were violating the 'standard' of your distro. If you are ever going to have anyone else involved with maintaining the system, you can get away with not documenting the distro, but you should document what you change from the default.