Re: deprecating /usr as a standalone filesystem?
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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.
> 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
A read-only / does the trick just as well. And if you don't want
writes to /usr you probably don't want writes to /bin or /sbin
either. So read-only / is really the way to go. Not a strong argument
for a seperate /usr.
The other mount options like nodev or having a different filesystem
type for /usr are stronger reasons.