Paul Morgan said on Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 03:49:52PM -0500: > > There are currently Debian packages which are needed at boot time which > > depend upon datafiles kept in /usr. discover is one of them, there may be > > more. In woody, therefor, a seperate /usr can cause problems. Does it > > gain you much? > > > > Why should /tmp be its own partition instead of symlinking /tmp -> > > /var/tmp? > > > > Is there any need for a /boot partition on modern hardware? Why do you > > like a seperate boot partition? > > > > I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind your partitioning scheme. > > > > M > > FHS says "The contents of the root filesystem should be adequate to boot, > restore, recover, and/or repair the system." Right... so, again with the "why put /usr on a seperate partition from /"? Making / large enough to hold /usr certainly fulfills the req of the contents of the root filesystem being adequate to boot, restore, recover and repair the system. > /tmp and /var/tmp have different purposes. Check FHS again. Actually, I > have both /tmp and /var/tmp on their own logical volumes. Okay, so neither your /tmp or /var/tmp volumes are available at boot time. So, why have a seperate /tmp and /var/tmp? According to the FHS 2.2, the only difference between /tmp and /var/tmp is that data in /var/tmp be "more persistant" than data in /tmp, but the only restriction on /tmp is that programs not assume that data in /tmp persists between invocations of a program. In other words, /var/tmp appears to completely fulfill the requirements of /tmp, which makes me wonder why they are seperate. M
Attachment:
pgpS6nriVHUIV.pgp
Description: PGP signature