default partition scheme without /home - why ?

[Felix Miata]

On 2008/03/12 10:04 (GMT-0400) James Hubbard apparently typed:

> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Felix Miata <mrmazda at ij.net> wrote:

>>  I can't imagine a newbie not welcoming the intelligence of a separate /home
>>  when they blindly reinstall after screwing something up, like an upgrade to a
>>  newer version 6 months later, shortly followed by trying again with reformat
>>  of /. You think most people, particularly the clueless, actually have backups
>>  of their personal data? If you do I think you're dreaming of utopia.

> I don't understand.  Do you expect the installer to protect the user
> from formatting an already formatted partition? 

Depends on the mount point of that partition, but generally yes.

> Doesn't the installer
> already warn you that formatting an already formatted partition you'll
> lose data?  Would this mean that when doing an install/re-install that
> the installation would not format a /home partition by default? It's
> been a few months since I've installed so I don't remember what the
> default behavior is.

Because of these obstacles
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=248247
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430836
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426677
and the recent brokenness Rawhide's net installation process I don't remember
either, but I don't believe any distro's installer would default to
formatting a partition selected for mounting as separate /home unless it has
no filesystem on it. I would consider any that do very broken.
-- 
"Let us not love with words or in talk only.
Let us love by what we do." 1 John 3:18 NLV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/