from darc...@gmail.com (Denise H. G.): > I strongly advise that /usr and /usr/local reside on different > partitions. Furthermore, If you plan to run a desktop environment, your > /usr/local should be big enough, say 8G - 10G, to hold all stuff you > built from the ports. And putting /var on a separate partitiion is a > good idea, I think. > You can find detailed information on how to lay out and size your > partitions in tuning(7) either locally or online.
The one directory I really want to put on a separate partition is /home . That way, you can fully rebuild/redo your system and keep user data. I don't like to put /var on a separate partition because of the danger of running short of space. I had nervous moments when running freebsd-update on the older computer and seeing the used part of /var grow. I don't really see a need to put /usr/local on a separate partition, though conceivably you could build applications with both FreeBSD ports and NetBSD pkgsrc, but keep these separate. NetBSD pkgsrc has been ported to other (quasi-)Unixes including FreeBSD. Default directory corresponding to FreeBSD's /usr/local is /usr/pkg . I think I like FreeBSD ports better than NetBSD pkgsrc, the latter which I used only with NetBSD. I originally installed FreeBSD 9.0-BETA1 using bsdinstall on the USB stick, including the ports. There was a conflict when I ran "portsnap fetch update", that didn't work. I had to run "portsnap fetch" and "portsnap extract", scrapping the ports tree from bsdinstall in favor of the fresh ports tree. So now I know best to not install ports tree from bsdinstall; this would presumably apply for sysinstall too. Tom _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
