New install: no /media directory?

zebulon · 2016-09-07 10:02:09

Hi, I just did a new install on a new machine. I just realised that I am missing /media from my filesystem, which is used for mounting removable media according to the FHS. It does not appear in the filesystem package. Am I doing something wrong?

graysky · 2016-09-07 10:11:57

I don't have /media on my xfce4 box. Make it if you want it.

zebulon · 2016-09-07 10:16:15

Right, but isn't that a bug? According to https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ar … _hierarchy Arch should follow the FSH. /media should be included. Shall I fill a bug?

WorMzy · 2016-09-07 10:22:25

You can file a bug if you want to, but I'm not sure it will go anywhere. /media is included with the udisks package, nothing else uses /media.

zebulon · 2016-09-07 10:57:55

I think it is a problem: /media should be in filesystems to be FSH compliant. Furthermore, udisks2 package has no /media, hence a new problem.

WorMzy · 2016-09-07 11:10:15

udisks2 doesn't use it, it uses /run/media/$USER/.

zebulon · 2016-09-07 11:13:30

Right, but /media should be part of filesystem for FSH compliance.

WorMzy · 2016-09-07 11:23:30

So you keep saying. You still haven't provided any reason why Arch's filesystem package should comply with FSH.

Omar007 · 2016-09-07 11:30:02

Introducing an empty folder without any function at all other then to comply with FHS sounds like a perfect reason to add it!

All sarcasm aside, if you really want this, you can set your system to do so yourself. Please read https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ud … udisks2.29
(note that the change to /run/media/$USER was not made without reason (e.g. privacy))

Last edited by Omar007 (2016-09-07 11:38:02)

Trilby · 2016-09-07 11:43:48

I think this thread is a bit silly - like Graysky said, make if it you want it. But the point that adding an empty directory just to comply with FSH is silly (or otherwise worthy of sarcasm) is at odds with the presence of /usr/local in arch of which the wiki states:

wiki wrote:

Additionally /usr/local is empty by default...

Two points are noteworhy there: an empty directory *does* exist simply for compliance with the FSH, and a note of the divergence from the FSH is made (in that the directory lacks the FSH mandated subdirectories).

Omar007 · 2016-09-07 11:48:26

Trilby wrote:

Two points are noteworhy there: an empty directory *does* exist simply for compliance with the FSH, and a note of the divergence from the FSH is made (in that the directory lacks the FSH mandated subdirectories).

I'm pretty sure the whole file hierarchy structure is actually present (the 'filesystem' package adds these iirc?). That does still leave the fact that those sub-folders are still empty I guess.

Last edited by Omar007 (2016-09-07 11:48:54)

Trilby · 2016-09-07 11:55:26

Omar007 wrote:

I'm pretty sure the whole file hierarchy structure is actually present

What? No, it clearly isn't. /media is not present.

But what you are pointing out now is that there is yet another way in which that wiki page is wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. Saying arch is FHS compliant with a few noted exceptions is silly if one of those exceptions isn't actually true, and another exception is not listed. Either that page needs an overhaul or we just need to stop saying that arch is FHS compliant.

Personally, I don't see FHS compliance as a worthwhile goal, so I really couldn't care less. But I do much prefer that things be accurately represented. I get really peeved at "100% orange juice" that has more than one item in the ingredients list. The same part of me doesn't like arch claiming to be FHS compliant when it is not.

EDIT: but on this note, this clearly doesn't seem like an installation issue. It is a wiki issue. Moved to wiki discussion.

Omar007 · 2016-09-07 11:56:30

Sorry I ment the whole hierarchy in /usr/local
The presence of this folder (even empty) I agree with due to this being specified as the location to use for manually installed/compiled software (and this complies with the FHS).

That does leave the fact that the lack of /media indeed does not comply with the FHS. The use of /run/media/$USER instead of /media has not become part of the FHS (yet?).
However, in case of /media, no user would be manually adding data here so if this folder is introduced as just an empty folder it really serves no purpose.
Furthermore, just having /media present as an empty folder would not make the system comply with the FHS either. For that to happen it would actually have to be used for mounts instead of /run/media/$USER.
As such you'd still need to configure your system to get this mount-point used by your system instead of /run/media/$USER.

Do I want that or find that necessary? If I'm entirely honest I don't give a f**k about /media and rather have the security benefits of /run/media/$USER..

Last edited by Omar007 (2016-09-07 12:23:33)

Alad · 2016-09-07 13:33:06

https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?ti … did=394878

WorMzy · 2016-09-07 13:48:26

Trilby wrote:

Either that page needs an overhaul or we just need to stop saying that arch is FHS compliant.

I don't think we do. We say "we follow", but I don't think that means "we are compliant with", especially when the next sentence lists specific changes we have implemented (i.e /bin -> /usr/bin). I think it means "we took FHS and made changes where it made sense", but I agree that it is ambiguous.

It's worth noting that our changes were made well before the most recent update to the FHS (2015), previously that document was last changed in 2004.

eschwartz · 2016-09-08 20:13:25

Omar007 wrote:

Introducing an empty folder without any function at all other then to comply with FHS sounds like a perfect reason to add it!
All sarcasm aside, if you really want this, you can set your system to do so yourself. Please read https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ud … udisks2.29
(note that the change to /run/media/$USER was not made without reason (e.g. privacy))

The fact that udisks2 upstream claims it was done for the purpose of security/privacy, does not mean the change actually resulted in any form of security benefits whatsoever.

And in fact, it didn't. All it did was make the mountpoints for removable drives less predictable, thereby breaking any program that allows you to store data on an external drive.

This used to be one of the reasons I preferred Linux over Windows. Fortunately, after enough people kicked up a fuss, they added an option to allow udev rules to revert the behavior back to something sane and simple.

Alad · 2016-09-08 21:50:47

The move to /run was also so you don't have left-over mountpoints, which doesn't help with "predictability" either.

Though this thread is strictly about why there's no /media directory in the filesystem package, not about which color of the bikeshed you prefer for your mount directories.

Last edited by Alad (2016-09-08 21:56:19)

eschwartz · 2016-09-08 21:59:14

Alad wrote:

The move to /run was also so you don't have left-over mountpoints, which doesn't help with "predictability" either.

The fact that /run is a tmpfs and /media doesn't have to be, has nothing to do with whether or not your distro bothered to use tmpfiles.d as appropriate.
So I guess that excuse is completely wrong as well.

Though this thread is strictly about why there's no /media directory on Arch, not about which color of the bikeshed you prefer for your mount directories.

I replied to a comment about the colors of the bikeshed, so I suppose I am guilty of continuing that irrelevant tangent, though certainly not beginning it.

Arch Linux

#1 2016-09-07 10:02:09

New install: no /media directory?

#2 2016-09-07 10:11:57

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#3 2016-09-07 10:16:15

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#4 2016-09-07 10:22:25

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#5 2016-09-07 10:57:55

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#6 2016-09-07 11:10:15

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#7 2016-09-07 11:13:30

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#8 2016-09-07 11:23:30

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#9 2016-09-07 11:30:02

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#10 2016-09-07 11:43:48

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#11 2016-09-07 11:48:26

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#12 2016-09-07 11:55:26

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#13 2016-09-07 11:56:30

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#14 2016-09-07 13:33:06

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#15 2016-09-07 13:48:26

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#16 2016-09-08 20:13:25

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#17 2016-09-08 21:50:47

Re: New install: no /media directory?

#18 2016-09-08 21:59:14

Re: New install: no /media directory?

Board footer