On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 09:27 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > Simon Geard wrote: > > [...] > > > While not universal, there seems to be a growing feeling that having a > > separate /usr partition serves no useful purpose these days. The third > > of those links gives a pretty good summary of that viewpoint. > > Well, I also have read this argument, and it cuts no water > with me.
Fair enough. Having a separate /usr partition makes little sense for me given my setup (no NFS, no encrypted FS, etc) but it certainly sounds like some people have uses for it. The Debian list does raise an interesting question of how package management handles an NFS-mounted /usr, though. While solvable, it's hard to see any distro doing a good job of that out of the box... > > As to compatibility with the FHS, distros seem inclined to ignore the > > spec, on the basis that it's not being updated, and no longer reflects > > reality (e.g no mention of /sys). Another discussion on that subject: > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/02/msg00395.html > > Interesting. I was unaware of that. Thanks! The subject has come up again recently with respect to the creation of a /run mountpoint (essentially moving /var/run to /) - it's been raised with FHS, but with no response. Fundamentally, I think the LSB / FHS is somewhat redundant - because as a practical matter, the real standard is whatever the big distros do. If Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and SuSe all decide this new /run thing is a good idea, does it really matter what the standard says on the subject? Simon.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
