rawhide report: 20101019 changes
seth vidal
skvidal at fedoraproject.org
Tue Oct 19 14:38:13 UTC 2010
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 14:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> > This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
> > Filesystem):
> >
> > /usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
> > partitions or filesystems.
> >
> > Do we *really* want to head this way, ignoring bugs resulting from
> > having /usr on a different partition such as
> > http://bugzilla.redhat.com/#626007, which is what led to this?
>
> What's the benefit in having /usr or /opt as separate filesystems?
>
/opt is a location filled with vendor detritus on a lot of systems -
sometimes managed by rpms, sometimes not. It's not uncommon to have /opt
automounted via nfs. Additionally, on some workstastion systems /opt is
a separate drive managed by the 'local admin' of the machine and filled
with whatever 3rd party software they need for their instance.
/usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime, for
example) or mounted readonly to prevent unnecessary writes to the
system.
Additionally, since our software in fedora has a trickle down impact on
users in rhel-land I think you'll find that this will have to be done,
eventually for them.
Finally, I'm more than a little concerned by the tone of comments in
that bug report. It's troubling.
-sv
More information about the devel
mailing list