Carl Lowenstein wrote: > On 11/10/05, Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > begin quoting Ralph Shumaker as of Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 12:26:40PM -0800: > > > Would it be unwise to have a partition /home (or /root) being mounted as > > > /home (or /root) under various installs? Basicly I'm wondering if there > > > would be problems from having, say, rh9 and fc3 sharing /home (or /root). > > > > > > How bad could it be? > > > > One of the reasons to put /home on a partition of its own is so that > > you can do just this... multiple distributions, one home directory. > > You'd need to make sure /etc/passwd and friends were set up correctly on > > each installation, or use LDAP/NIS+/whatnot to maintain user-account > > information. > > > > Doing the same for /root ... seems a bit trickier, but I can't think of > > why it wouldn't be doable. Can't say I've given much thought to how that > > would break. > > /root needs to be on the root (/) partition for a number of reasons. > Particularly so that > you can boot without mounting all partitions.
Why do you need /root to boot? so root has a $HOME? Many systems have / as root's $HOME. I will have to try an experiment - boot a linux system with an effectively unmounted /root to see what happens (this will be done by clearing everything in /root out. I will make it harder, by taking the /root and changing its perm's to 000 which would get overwritten upon mounting the real /root) I don't think that /root needs to be on / at all, even for a boot -s situation. /sbin and /etc certainly do. /bin on the linux systems too. -john -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
