| 1 |
El lun, 01-08-2011 a las 13:30 +0200, Marc Schiffbauer escribió: |
| 2 |
> * Pacho Ramos schrieb am 01.08.11 um 13:19 Uhr: |
| 3 |
> > El lun, 01-08-2011 a las 13:12 +0200, Marc Schiffbauer escribió: |
| 4 |
> > [...] |
| 5 |
> > > * /usr/portage can get very huge and is often written to. With |
| 6 |
> > > / and /usr being on the same FS you really want to have |
| 7 |
> > > /usr/portage on a seperate FS then |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > I am sure there are some other reasons too. |
| 10 |
> > > |
| 11 |
> > > Just my 2¢ |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > -Marc |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Having /usr/portage on a different partition will still be supported if |
| 16 |
> > I understood correctly (at least, it still works fine for me even having |
| 17 |
> > the rest of /usr under / partition) |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> yes. My point was, that if you have a separate /usr you may be ok |
| 20 |
> with no seperate /usr/portage |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> -Marc |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Well, I guess it depends on every administrator :-), for example in my |
| 25 |
case I use a separate partition for it to have it mounted without |
| 26 |
"notail" reiserfs option (as "tail" is slower in "normal" conditions), |
| 27 |
allowing me to spend around 300 MB on it instead of 3,5G. That way, I |
| 28 |
would have it in a separate partition even having /usr on a separate |
| 29 |
one. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
But this is probably a bit off-topic :-) |
Archives