[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: firefox-37, where to put

On Friday 03 April 2015 10:35:49 Reco wrote:
>  Hi.
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 10:01:43AM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote:
> > On Friday 03 April 2015 08:47:11 Reco wrote:
> > > > I assume only by mounting a new drive at some temporary location,
> > > > copying all the installed data from /home to it, then fixing fstab to
> > > > mount that drive on top of the existing /home directory?  I have done
> > > > that in the past, but not in the last half decade as drives are
> > > > outrageously big now.
> > >
> > > More-or-less yes. You forgot to mention emptying old home, but all
> > > needed stuff is there.
> >
> > I would say *instead of*, not *on top of*.  And copying over is easy,
> > when your new home is mounted via fstab.
> Clarification needed (see below):

No, it isn't.

> > mkdir /oldhome
> >
> > mnt <oldhome> /oldhome
> Is mnt an alias to 'mv'? Or 'mount -o bind'? Or something else?

No, mnt is mnt 

$ man mnt

> > cp -Rpu /oldhome/. /home/
> >
> > Though you could, of course, do it in the other order, mounting <oldhome>
> > as /home.  But it would still be easy.
> I see at least one (minor) complication in such approach, and that is
> the user who uses such home right now. I mean, copying files that are
> being written to right now is kind of … unpredictable as far as results
> are concerned.

For goodness sake!  Of course you don't use your /home while you are copying 
it.  As far as possible, anyway.  There may be all sorts of theoretical 
problems, but this works. I have done it.  Of course, if you are really 
worried you can use a live CD to do the copying.

> But doing it correct way would probably require using LVM (snapshots),
> and LVM is one of those things that are either used from the start, or
> not used at all.

That is not what we were discussing.  Read the thread.  The idea is simply to 
add a separate /home after installation.

There may be flaws in my approach, and I may indeed have forgotten something.  
But these aren't they.  You are just trying to complicate something simple.

Reply to: