[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: partition layouts - symlinks

From: Hollis Blanchard
Subject: Re: partition layouts - symlinks
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 10:38:11 -0500

On Apr 5, 2005, at 2:00 AM, Marco Gerards wrote:

Hollis Blanchard <address@hidden> writes:

The other possibility is to have all of /boot as a firmware-native
filesystem. I think that's not ideal though, because those filesystems
(HFS+, FAT) might not support features like symlinks or Unix-style
permissions, or may not be as well-tested as Linux-native filesystems.

HFS+ supports symlinks, FAT does not (unless you use UMSDOS, which is
not supported).  For every symlink capable filesystem GRUB 2 supports,
symlink support was implemented.

I think you misunderstand this point. I am not worried about GRUB's filesystem support. I am worried about how some Linux distributions like to install several kernels (e.g. vmlinux-foo-smp, vmlinux-foo) and then create a plain "vmlinux" symlink to the default. That cannot work on FAT.

Similarly, reliance on Unix file permissions in /boot will not work with FAT. Admittedly this may be less important, as non-root users probably have no business in /boot at all, so mount-specified permissions may be adequate.

What about fsck on /boot? Aren't these all good reasons to keep /boot as a Linux-native filesystem?


reply via email to

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