On Saturday 05 Oct 2002 17:37, Bob Walker wrote: > According to Version 2.2 of the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS), > /root is not a requirement - it is optional. However, if the root > directory is used, it must be in /. 'root' CAN exist as a link to a > directory or as a mounted partition. > > bob > There. Thanks Bob. So there is no reason why /root should not be on a separate partition - just as I thought. Pixel, can you now change the installer to allow this?
> On Saturday 05 October 2002 03:46 am, Peter Ruskin wrote: > > On Friday 04 Oct 2002 02:43, Dave Seff wrote: > > > Why must /root be on the same file system as / ? > > > > > > I keep mine separate as not to wipe out ssh keys and other > > > things. I can change it after the initial install and all is > > > fine, but the installer complains. > > > > > > > > > Just wondering. > > > -Dave > > > > I asked this and Pixel responded by requesting a good reason for > > allowing /root to have its own partition. My reason is that it is > > root's home and I don't want it wiped when I reinstall. I've > > always worked like that. Who decided that it's taboo? > > > > /root on my 9.0 machine is now on its own partition, just as in my > > other unices. I have yet to see a good reason given for > > disallowing this on install - to me it's draconian interference. > > > > Peter -- Gentoo Linux (portage-2.0.38). KDE: 3.0.3 Qt: 3.0.5 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 1600+ 512MB. Kernel: 2.4.19-win4lin. GCC 3.2 Linux user #275590 (http://counter.li.org/). up 1 day, 22 h, 01 min #=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=#
