On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 01:36:34PM +0100, Lubomir Kundrak wrote: > > 1. The root directory might be read-only on the TFTP server, so it > > isn't a good place to put the TFTP root. > > Why? The images are usually also read only. Not really. Most of my tftp directory contains read-write log files. Even if you do keep only images there, you wouldn't want to have to remount / read-write (if even possible) just to update an image for booting a different host. > > 2. The root directory might be too small to store lots of log files, > > huge crash dumps, etc. > > Well, if you use it for crash dumps, there are bind mounts and links > still. So we should hack around deficiencies instead of fixing it properly? TFTP is usually used in situations where the client device is very dumb. In many cases, it cannot support configuring complete file paths and must store files in the TFTP root. So, you cannot use bind mounts to work around it. If tftpd chroots to its configured root directory, you cannot use symlinks that point outside of this root. Unless you have a UnionFS, you would be stuck. > > 3. It really makes no sense to have a separate top-level directory for > > the TFTP service. /tftpboot is a legacy location that should be > > reconsidered. > > It does in case tftpd doesn't chroot. Who would actually not chroot their TFTP daemon? > I would be more happy if we kept /tftpboot. Loads of documentation > assumes it, people remember it that way. The benefits are too small to > outweight the loses. Fedora isn't about keeping status quo "Just Because". It is about innovation and constant improvement, sometimes to the detriment of legacy traditions. Tradition alone isn't a valid excuse for preventing innovation. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
