> -----Original Message----- > From: Linux on 390 Port On Behalf Of McKown, John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Linux on 390 Port On Behalf Of Mark Post > > > > >>> On 1/5/2010 at 1:55 PM, Richard Troth wrote: > > -snip- > > > Novell? RedHat? What do y'all say? Is there a problem with this? > > > > No clue. Why do you need a /local in the first place? > > I think what he wants to do is mount a filesystem at /local, then be able to refer to it via the > symlink /usr/local . Instead of mounting a filesystem at /usr/local. I don't know how, but he said > that mounting the filesystem at /usr/local could result in "one FS hiding the other". I don't > understand that.
If /usr/local already has files/directories, mounting a "new" filesystem on /usr/local "replaces" all of them with the contents of the newly mounted filesystem, for the duration the new filesystem is mounted. I.e., you can't "see" the original files/directories until you unmount the "new" filesystem. -jc- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
