On Mar 13, 2012 2:19 PM, "Alan McKinnon" <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 11:54:58 +0700 > Pandu Poluan <pa...@poluan.info> wrote: > > > > The idea of trying to launch udevd and initialize devices without > > > the software, installed in /usr, which is required by those devices > > > is a configuration that causes problems in many real-world, > > > practical situations. > > > > > > The requirement of having /usr on the same partition as / is also a > > > configuration that causes problems in many real-world, practical > > > situations. > > > > > > > I quite often read about this, and after some thinking, I have to > > ask: why? > > > > I've also thought about this and I also want to ask why? > > I stopped using a separate /usr on my workstations a long time ago when > I realized it was pointless. The days of 5M hard disks when the entire > OS didn't fit on one are long gone. The days of my software going tits > up at the drop of a hat requiring a minimal repair environment to fix > it at boot are also long gone (my desk is littered with LiveCDs and > bootable flash drives). > > So I can't find a single good reason why /usr *must* be separate and my > workstations are the only machines that will ever have hotplug booting > issues. > > I'm even considering changing the install standards for the company > servers to dispense with separate /usr, as long as there are safeguards > against clowns who don't read INSTALL files and happily > accept /usr/local/<package>/var as a storage area. >
I just did some more thinking, and *maybe* the reason is to prevent something under /usr (src and share comes to mind) from growing too big and messes up the root filesystem. Place the offenders on a separate partition, then mount them under /usr, and all should be well... Rgds,
