Filesystem hierarchy standard - questions about /boot

Posted May 5, 2011 23:23 UTC (Thu) by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
In reply to: Filesystem hierarchy standard - questions about /boot by pr1268
Parent article: Filesystem hierarchy standard 3.0 process begins

Frankly I don't see what your problem is here. The rules in the FHS apply to distributors and application developers. As a system administrator you are perfectly free to arrange your own system as you see fit the FHS tells you which bits of the file system you should avoid because the distribution is allowed to futz around with them, but other than that, whatever floats your boat is fine.

In particular I don't think there's anything gravely wrong with not having the content of the /boot directory accessible during normal system operation. Also there ought to be no problems with GRUB provided that GRUB can get at the partition in question when the system is booted.

to post comments

Filesystem hierarchy standard - questions about /boot

Posted May 6, 2011 7:53 UTC (Fri) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] (4 responses)

Why do we have to mess with it at all the last thing wanted is yet more need for extra partitions boot works quite well as an dir on / there is no need for an separate partition < i have not too much knowledge of the FHS but certain things just strike me as a retrograde step we used to have /boot as an partition years ago i do not want to see it return

Filesystem hierarchy standard - questions about /boot

Posted May 6, 2011 8:02 UTC (Fri) by niner (guest, #26151) [Link] (1 responses)

One still needs /boot on it's own partition if one is using LVM for root or a file system not supported by one's bootloader.

Filesystem hierarchy standard - questions about /boot

Posted May 13, 2011 18:39 UTC (Fri) by tack (guest, #12542) [Link]

That isn't necessary anymore with GRUB 2.

Filesystem hierarchy standard - questions about /boot

Posted May 6, 2011 9:05 UTC (Fri) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (1 responses)

Nothing in the FHS says that /boot must be on its own partition. Under some circumstances this is unavoidable (e.g., with some LVM and/or encryption setups), and historically it used to be necessary on various machines due to BIOS limitations. However there is nothing wrong in principle with having /boot on the root file system along with /etc, /bin and so on, just as there is nothing wrong with having it on its own partition. The FHS makes no stipulation either way.

Filesystem hierarchy standard - questions about /boot

Posted May 6, 2011 22:27 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

And on one of my systems I have doze on hda, linux on hdb, grub as my bootloader, and I couldn't get an hdb /boot to work ...

Mind you, I get the impression from the OP that's okay because / and /boot are on different hard drives.

Cheers,
Wol