Re: why are there /bin and /usr/bin...
The Fungi <email@example.com> writes:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:45:04PM +0200, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>> Of course,.. but only because your /usr is on the root-fs.
>> And there are many good reasons to put it on its own fs, as already
>> outlayed here...
> No disagreement there... I'm much in favor of continuing to support
> /usr on its own filesystem for a variety of reasons. And I
> acknowledge the circularity of the argument was only partial (I did
> qualify that by calling it *somewhat* circular). My point was that,
> playing devil's advocate, it's not enough to suggest that lacking
> the tools/logic in the initrd to mount an encrypted /usr is reason
> alone to have /usr separate from the / filesystem.
We already have the logic in there to mount anything as /. /usr can't be
any harder so that isn't an argument. There is nothing you can do with
/usr that can't allready be done to /.
I think the biggest argument for multiple partitions is that / and /usr
can be read-only and that gives a huge reliability improvement. But that
argument doesn't really tell why /usr should be seperate.
The biggest argument for supporting a seperate /usr I think is for
historical reasons. Many many systems are simply setup that way and
requiring people to reinstall from scratch for an update is not the
Debian way. I think against that the other reasons are minor though
still valid even for new installs.