Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-09-28 2:18 PM, Dale <rdalek1...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Michael Hampicke wrote: >>> No seperate /usr either > >> Well, it was there when I followed it otherwise, I wouldn't have known >> to even do it. I all but copy and pasted the instructions from the >> install guide. > > I'm 99% certain it was in the LVM part of the handbook/guide. > > Dale - I'm honestly curious, what is your reason, philisophical or > technical, for wanting a separate /usr? > > Everything I've read says there is no good reason for it today. > Separate /home, /tmp, /var, yes, good reasons for t hose... but not > /usr... > > So, again - why would you prefer switching distro's over merging /usr > back into / and be done with it? > > . >
I didn't use LVM back then. I only started using LVM a few years ago. The reason is the same I have posted before. I have / and /boot on regular partitions. Everything else is on LVM. I don't have / on LVM because it would require a init thingy. I don't have /boot on LVM because grub doesn't or didn't support it. I have since switched to grub2 so it may but still have the issue with / so no need redoing everything for that. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
