| 1 |
Hi Jaco, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:18:38AM +0200, Jaco Kroon wrote: |
| 4 |
> Hi, |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
*snip* |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> For what it's worth. All of my systems are installed with a fixed-size |
| 9 |
> 512MB / with everything else (including /usr) on separate LVs. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Whilst sbin vs bin is just a matter of what's available, to me it makes |
| 12 |
> sense to keep these split. To me it's always been logical to keep |
| 13 |
> administrative type (root) tools under sbin, and stuff that's generally |
| 14 |
> useful for users under bin. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As I said in my previous message, sbin and /usr/sbin are supposed to |
| 17 |
have statically linked binaries in them, "s" means static not |
| 18 |
superuser. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Keeping / and /usr split (or the ability to keep it split) is rather |
| 21 |
> crucial for me. It's for historic installations a matter of space |
| 22 |
> constraints on /. For new installations it's a matter of keeping / as |
| 23 |
> small as possible in order to have a smallish bootable system which can |
| 24 |
> be used for recovering the rest of the system, ideally without an initrd |
| 25 |
> (which also works to an extent). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Having / and /usr on separate filesystems is not what split-usr is |
| 28 |
about. split-usr just means that /bin /lib* and /sbin are directories |
| 29 |
not symlinks. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Splitting / and /usr to separate filesystems without an initramfs is |
| 32 |
not officially supported. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
William |
Archives