On Thursday 27 November 2008 07:20:37 Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Jorge Peixoto de Morais Neto > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I take it you've already observed that you can also share portage and > >> distfiles directories? Easiest is if they are on their own partitions > >> but there are tricks that can get the same effect if not. How to do this > >> is left as an exercise for the reader :-) with one tip for those who > >> don't know: > >> > >> mount -o bind > >> -- > >> alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com > > > > I know about mount -o bind. > > However, (forgive me if this is naive), why not just a symlink? That > > is the way I do. > > I want my root partition to be small (for performance reasons), so I > > put things that don't need speed int its own partion, which I mount in > > /usr/local/slowpart (the name fits; the partition is at the end of the > > harddisk and 80% full, so it is slower than the root partion, that is > > at the beginning of the hard disk and 7% full. > > In this slowpart, I have DISTDIR, PKGDIR, and some personal files that > > are not frequently accessed (such as files I will likely never use but > > kept for safety). I configure DISTDIR and PKGDIR in make.conf, but the > > personal files are linked to my home via symbolic links. >
> I guess the advantage of bind-mount is having all of it configured in > fstab, as instead of having many symlinks. > (forgive me it this is naive). I wouldn't call it naive. Sometimes the simple solution is the best one, sometimes you need something more complex. So whether to use symlinks or a bind mount depends on circumstance. > > And there is all that --move, --make-shared, --make-slave, > --make-private, --make-unbindable stuff, but that seems overkill for a > desktop user. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
