>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> You've missed the point. Split / and /boot, that makes Thomas> sense if it's necessary. Splitting / and /usr does not Thomas> make sense. Bad example. A better example might be if you want to mount /usr via NFS or some other network file-system. I have heard people use AFS for this purpose. I am sure there are other file-systems that could be used. Yes, there are ways you can mount / via a network file-system: * NFS Boot code in kernel that auto-configures the network. * initramfs (anybody written code to do this?) However, if all you want to do is share /usr between systems, currently the simplest approach (and the only way I know this is possible) is if /usr is a separate from /. For starters, it only requires an extra entry in /etc/fstab. No changes to the boot structure. A relevant factor is that some directories (i.e. /etc and /var) cannot always be shared, but must be available early on in the boot process (i.e. /etc). So it might make sense to have a local private copy of /, but have /usr shared. Yes, this gets a bit messy in places (e.g. keeping /etc, /lib, and /var synchronized with /usr), but my point is to prove that there still are benefits in keeping /usr and / split. The arguments presented hold true of any filesystem that is complicated enough to require user-level tools to initialize, and for some reason you don't want to use an initramfs to initialize it. Or if you want /usr to be shared between computers but don't want to share all of /. -- Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]