I’m not opposed to creating rules for /mnt, perhaps in another ‘removable-media’-like interface. The mountpoints in /mnt are not well-formed or regular though, so the rules would be:
# Description: Can access temporary mounted filesystems in /mnt
Note, the description for this comes from http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#MNTMOUNTPOINTFORATEMPORARILYMOUNT and arguably the requester of this feature is misusing this location since the fstab entry looks like a permanent location. Of course, /mnt is there and users aren’t obliged to adhere to the FHS…
Perhaps the /mnt rules simply belong in removable-media? The mountpoints aren’t necessarily ‘media’ but since /mnt is typically (according to FHS) for ‘temporary mounts’, ‘removable’ does seem to fit.
The question then becomes, where does this stop? Eg, what about /srv? While /srv is supposed to be for data files the system serves (eg, ftp, http, etc), I’ve seen people use /srv as an alternative to /mnt (eg, especially in relation to a backup server and NFS).
@niemeyer - thoughts? It is pretty clear to me we should continue to ignore /srv. Based on the FHS description, I think I am leaning towards adding /mnt to the removable-media interface, but could easily be swayed to a separate mnt- interface.