On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 02:28:25AM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 01:21:05 +0100, Miroslav wrote in message > <075cb09d-9f17-1610-ced5-7ad556f5e...@uns.ac.rs>: > > > On 11/17/18 3:18 PM, Didier Kryn wrote: > > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > The advantage of separating /usr is it can be mounted after > > > boot. /bin and /sbin (and /lib) contain the critical applications > > > (and library) necessary to boot the system, and they are, by > > > necessity, part of the root filesystem. Merging /usr means, > > > actually merging /usr/bin with /bin, /usr/sbin with /sbin > > > and /usr/lib with /lib. > > > > > > Merging /usr means all the bloat from /usr/bin and /usr/lib > > > will now be in /bin and /lib (not so much bloat in /usr/sbin). This > > > has very > > > > > > Two more questions: > > > > 1. Installing (too many) software from repositories tends to fill in > > /usr to the point it screams for space (particularly in older > > machines with smaller HDD). However it seems to me that the root > > filesystem is still happy in such cases. But what in case of merger? > > Can the whole system be rendered unusable? (Or screaming?) > > ..easily IME, just put _everything_ in / , then fire up aptitude and > pick the "Not Installed Packages (42209)" and see what happens. ;o) > > ..I killed it at 160%+81.something% load to bail out this time. :o) > > > > 2. What about local compilations of various 3rd party software that > > usually go to /usr/local/bin, sbin, lib, ... in case of merger will > > they all go to the root filesystem? More potential trouble? Yes/No? > > Tnx. > > ..you want these on its own disk, or at least on their own disk > partitions, like your /home tree.
I can see no reason why /usr/local shouldn't be mounted as a separate partition even if /usr isn't. -- hendrik _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
