desktop update failure (F9beta)
lordmorgul at gmail.com
Thu Apr 10 09:16:33 UTC 2008
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 12:50 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 16:33 +0000, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?
>> J=F3hann_B._Gu=F0mundsson _ wrote:
>>> Yes I know hence I was suggesting putting /var on a separate partition
>>> which would contain enough space for updates and such..
>>> /var ( size enough for future upgrades so when a user fills his /home
>>> (/) with all his *media* it does not affect /var )
>>> Just an idea..
>> If you read through the archives, this idea gets brought up every now
>> and again, and eventually peters out when you try and figure out what
>> the best split partition style is for a default, for everybody. It
>> really does come back to doing /no/ split partitions (except for boot
>> due to grub shortcomings) as a default.
> Define "best" - Your "best" only is "optimal" in the sense of
> "least likelihood to fail during initial installs".
> It is not "best" with regard to other aspects, e.g.
> - it kills /home during careless upgrades (reformat ... Yes -> boom)
> - it is unsafe to use, because allows arbitrary ordinary users to fill
> "/" e.g. through filling /tmp, /var or /home.
> I take the fact, this issue "gets brought up every now and again", as a
> strong indication of your claim ("this default is best") not to be true.
> I read this as: "In longer terms users are facing issues".
Odd. I read it as 'noone has yet suggested the valid heuristic that works for
all disk sizes and user demands in the short term while they learn the operating
Note Jesse did not even say what was best, he said the discussions lead back to
keeping the current status quo. ;)
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
gpg 0x8300BF29 fingerprint 071D FFE0 4CBC 13FC 7DEB 5BD5 5F89 8E1B 8300 BF29
More information about the test