Re: [gentoo-user] Re: USB sticks now mounting on /run/media instead of /media ?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thu, 3 May 2012 20:33:19 -0400
Joshua Murphy <poisonbl@×××××.com> wrote:

> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 7:00 PM, walt <w41ter@×××××.com> wrote:
> > On 05/03/2012 02:48 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:18 PM, walt <w41ter@×××××.com> wrote:
> >>> On 04/13/2012 05:19 PM, walt wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>  A recent update
> >>>> (udev?) on my ~amd64 machines is now mounting removable drives
> >>>> on /run/media instead of /media.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Ha! I should have suspected Lennart from the beginning:
> >>>
> >>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/commit/?id=231931ffba1bca9d8759bbd6f797e56f8c6971fa
> >>
> >> The link you posted has nothing to do with this; that's only a
> >> systemd-specific change in response to a change in udisks2. In
> >> other words, Lennart has nothing to do with this change, the
> >> responsible is David Zeuthen, udisks2 maintainer:
> >>
> >> https://plus.google.com/u/0/110773474140772402317/posts/NqPUifsFUYH
> >
> > Thanks for the correction.
> >
> >> And it's actually a pretty reasonable change (IMHO): now in
> >> multiseat configurations each user can plug a USB drive and only
> >> him/she will see it
> >
> > I've thought that for a long time.  Mounting my own "personal
> > mount" on a system directory never made any sense to me.
> >  However, /run/media is still a system directory, so it still
> > doesn't make any sense to me.
> >
> > I think /home/wa1ter/media is a more logical choice.  But I'm not
> > doing the coding in this bazaar ;)
> >
> > The upstream dev(s) seem intent on mounting removable media on a
> > tempfs for some reason.  Do you know why?
> >
> > I understand completely the reason for inventing /run and making it
> > a tempfs (I think Lennart *was* involved in that), but why use /run
> > when it's not necessary or (IMHO) logical?
>
> In my completely uninformed guess... a) tmpfs automatically 'cleans
> up' every reboot, making sure old folders aren't sitting around stale
> even if something did go wrong, and/or b) it's guaranteed writable for
> the service that needs to make those mount points. I could probably
> come up with a 'c', but I'd likely have to actually do a bit of
> reading on the topic before rising looking even more foolishly un-read
> on the topic than I already do! :-P
>

Here you go, one time c):

/run can be guaranteed to exist immediately after / is mounted, which
fixes a whole slew of really horrible problems if it isn't.



-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com