Re: deprecating /usr as a standalone filesystem?
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 08:51:33AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2009, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > No. But we do leave /usr read-only the rest of the time, which
> > > is often 99.999% of the time. A separate /usr is required for this.
> > Uhm, no?
> > mount --bind /usr /usr
> First, you'd need a RO bind mount (yes, it exists, but your command
> doesn't do it). Second, the filesystem is still RW, so it gains you
> very little as far as data safety goes.
That's because you neatly trimmed off the rest of my message, which was:
> > Should do the trick (the same mount -o remount,rw / remount,ro then
> > applies). all thanks to the magic of subtrees :)
> A separate /usr *is* the way to go if you don't want any writes in
> that filesystem 99.9% of the time (i.e. when you're not doing an
I'm not opposing this, and I definitely don't support Marco's idea.
I just pointed out that a separate filesystem isn't required to
make a mountpoint read-only.
/) David Weinehall <firstname.lastname@example.org> /) Rime on my window (\
// ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ // Diamond-white roses of fire //
\) http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ (/ Beautiful hoar-frost (/