Re: deprecating /usr as a standalone filesystem?
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 03:53:23PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Gabor Gombas wrote:
>> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:38:45PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> it is the principle of the thing. /root is the home directory
>>> for the root user. Home directories are mutable, programs may store
>>> configuration files there, as may the user, by themselves. The root
>>> user should not be more constrained than other users on the machine are;
>>> making wirking as root irritating, less customizable, and harder does
>>> not help the end user admin any.
>>> Ideally, we should map /root somewhere persistent, writable, and
>>> also a location available in single user mode; and there are few
>>> pleasing solutions that meet that criteria; though less than perfect
>>> solutions exist.
>> I fail to see how root is different to any other random user in this
>> regard. If you want / to be read-only, then you should ensure that /home
>> points to something writable. The same thing holds for /root. You can
>> make /home and /root to be separate filesystems, or bind mounts or
>> symlinks pointing to a writable location. If you can handle /home today
>> then you can also handle /root exactly the same way.
> No, /root cannot be a separate filesystem.
> /root is part of very basic system, and it is required for super user
> when he/she is restoring the systems or doing some kind of administration
> (e.g. moving filesystems, etc.).
Why do these tasks require a writable (or even present) /root?
.''`. Roger Leigh
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux http://people.debian.org/~rleigh/
`. `' Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gutenprint.sourceforge.net/
`- GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 Please GPG sign your mail.