Does anyone reuse /boot or /var partitions ?

[Felix Miata]

Adam Williamson composed on 2015-01-23 02:25 (UTC-0500):

> On Fri, 2015-01-23 at 00:58 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:

> triggered someone's 'why do we let this happen in the first place' 
> reflex.

"Let"? This is after all Linux, not Windows. Traditional home of choices,
within reason of course. Hard of itself isn't a reason of itself to disallow.
Everything can't be easy, especially within an installation system that must
be functional within a minimal RAM pool. Nevertheless, limit choices in what
seems to be an arbitrary manner and it starts smelling like tryanny of the
majority wanting to exorcise a minority, too much outside control limiting
autonomy of the local admin, bullying at the least.

Thinking about this from another direction, does any other major distro
demand this ancient  non-root component of FHS be wiped clean as prerequisite
to installation?

>> Right, but I recall nothing in FHS that says an admin should have no 
>> right

> I really hate this phrasing of things in terms of 'rights', we're not 
> talking about rights, we're talking about the behaviour of software. 
> No-one's inflicting on anyone else's human rights, here. We're just 
> trying to make software that works as well as possible.

As well is practical? As well as possible means disallowing most or all
choice, rather like Apple does.

>> FWIW, something is putting "theme" files in /boot even though what the theme
>> is for is not installed. Why aren't theme files for the bootloader among the
>> places other things that use themes expect to find them?

> I've no idea what you're talking about here, I'm afraid...

Why need /boot/grub2 exist on a system without grub2 installed?

>> But, I do on
>> occasion have use for the content I put on it both before and after the first
>> OS installation, as well as while the first is the only, regardless of where
>> it's mounted

> OK, so the case for you is that you have a process where you stick 
> some bits in a partition that you then want to mount as /boot...they 
> don't really *have* to be there, but it's a configuration you're 
> accustomed to using?

Yes, a convenience that can amount to a virtual necessity when there are no
available USB sticks that are suited to task and yet another cheap junk OM
drive has gone kaput. My "realboot" partitions usually don't get mounted as
/boot very many times before reconfiguring them elsewhere.

Without them, though, there is usually no available Linux bootloader at all.
It, rather than MBR, is the springboard from which all else flows here, out
of habit designed to minimize potential inconvenience where Windows is on a
system. With DOS/Windows compatible MBR code that does that, the master
bootloader must live on a primary partition, even if it means the master
bootloader must be Redmond's.

I'm tired and rambling. Sign off.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

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