Separate /usr partition

[Mike McCarty]

Tim wrote:
> Michael Cronenworth:
>>> Nope. It has everything to do with booting. Some packages in /bin
>>> depended on libs in /usr/lib{64} so calling the init script

They should not. IMO, boot should depend only upon these directories
being present:

	/
	/boot
	/bin
	/sbin
	/lib
	/etc
	/root

The /usr file system should not be necessary for boot. Any libraries
which executables in /bin and /sbin depend upon should be in /lib.

The libraries in /usr/lib should serve the executables in /usr/bin
and /usr/sbin, which are not needed by executables in /bin and /sbin.

[...]

> I'd always been able to put /usr on a separate partition, and it was a
> long standing recommendation (to use separate partitions for home, opt
> var, usr, tmp), since you could mount them with different parameters, or
> different file systems, or even on individual disc drives, for optimum
> performance.  Not to mention additional protection against accidents.

[...]

> And, as I recall, the boot process is not supposed to depend on
> something that might be on an unmounted partition.  And usr being one of
> the partitions that doesn't have to be present.  You end up making it
> impossible, or problematic to boot up in single mode, to do maintenance
> on a system.  It looks like someone's done something dumb in 64-bit
> land.

I heartily agree.

> If you look at /usr/bin in the FSH*, it's presence is not supposed to be
> required to boot (in single mode), and /usr/lib holds files
> that /usr/bin might want.  So, requiring /usr/lib* anything, just to
> boot, ought to be an error.

Yep.

Mike
-- 
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose globalization and One World Governments like the UN.
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!