On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 06:49:45PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 01:08:31AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > > > > So please just keep in mind that this is annoying > > some others, and if you don't feel annoyed, just > > live with the fact you aren't alone in this world, and > > that some of us prefer a separated /usr partition. > > Based on which technical merits? > > "I want to have a separate /usr, because I can" is not a reason to > make things more complex and difficult in the development. > > I would agree if there was a technical reason, but I don't see > any. And, as you see, enabling a separate /usr means extra work. I encourage you to read the archives of this list, where reasons have been given in detail. Also, before using a separate /usr was controversial, many people partitioned their systems with a separate /usr. I have a server that is configured this way. If I were to reinstall it, I might not use a separate /usr, but it is hardly reasonable to make me repartition my disk now. That means extra work for me. (Nor is it reasonable to have init lecture me about it every boot.) -- brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US +1 832 623 2791 | http://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only OpenPGP: RSA v4 4096b: 88AC E9B2 9196 305B A994 7552 F1BA 225C 0223 B187
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature