| 1 |
Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2013-09-28 2:18 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Michael Hampicke wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> No seperate /usr either |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> Well, it was there when I followed it otherwise, I wouldn't have known |
| 7 |
>> to even do it. I all but copy and pasted the instructions from the |
| 8 |
>> install guide. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I'm 99% certain it was in the LVM part of the handbook/guide. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Dale - I'm honestly curious, what is your reason, philisophical or |
| 13 |
> technical, for wanting a separate /usr? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Everything I've read says there is no good reason for it today. |
| 16 |
> Separate /home, /tmp, /var, yes, good reasons for t hose... but not |
| 17 |
> /usr... |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> So, again - why would you prefer switching distro's over merging /usr |
| 20 |
> back into / and be done with it? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> . |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I didn't use LVM back then. I only started using LVM a few years ago. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The reason is the same I have posted before. I have / and /boot on |
| 29 |
regular partitions. Everything else is on LVM. I don't have / on LVM |
| 30 |
because it would require a init thingy. I don't have /boot on LVM |
| 31 |
because grub doesn't or didn't support it. I have since switched to |
| 32 |
grub2 so it may but still have the issue with / so no need redoing |
| 33 |
everything for that. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Dale |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
:-) :-) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives