| 1 |
On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:28:54 +0200 |
| 2 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Samuli Suominen schrieb: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Someone mentioned NFS mount on /usr. Do we have other reasons? How |
| 7 |
> > many users that might be? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> If you have / encrypted, then you can leave /usr unencrypted as it |
| 10 |
> contains no secrets. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That's doing things upside-down. You should encrypt the data needing |
| 13 |
encryption, not the other way. This usually means /home which is |
| 14 |
separate more often than /usr. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Also /usr can remain mounted read-only most of the time, so there is |
| 17 |
> a reduced chance of accidental corruption. I don't know the number of |
| 18 |
> users who might want this, and I imagine it is difficult to count |
| 19 |
> them. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Is this actually possible now? Last time I tried doing things like this |
| 22 |
X11 failed to set keyboard mappings trying to store compiled ones |
| 23 |
in /usr. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> > I dislike the idea of moving libglib-2.0, libdbus-1, |
| 26 |
> > libdbus-glib-1, and couple of dozen more libs to / |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> If you say that /usr must be on the same filesystem as /, then there |
| 29 |
> is no real reason to not just make a symlink /usr -> . |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
That's a joke, right? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
Michał Górny |
Archives