folks -- Does anyone see or imagine or know of any negative impact from having /usr/local be a symbolic link to /local? One of my teammates is asking.
I have personally endorsed this particular hack. It lets us have /usr and /local each be in their own filesystem and yet not have a mount fight. That is, if /usr/local and /usr were each unique filesystems, you could wind up with bad things like one FS hiding the other. (Rare, but possible.) So instead, I am in the habit of moving /usr/local to /local and letting there be a sym-link /usr/local. What then is the risk? Novell? RedHat? What do y'all say? Is there a problem with this? Thanks. -- R; <>< ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
