Thanks for all the feedback. I've seen cases where, for example, a sub-dir of /proc is a mount point, and the mount point gets created before /proc is actually mounted. (Some script somewhere must be doing this, because the 'mount' command executable does not.) So a missing /usr/local (mount point) doesn't necessarily ensure that the two cannot get out of sequence.
It doesn't matter all that much (to me) whether mounting /usr/local ahead of /usr can be prevented. The cascade of mounts is inelegant. So the question is simply if anyone sees problems with /usr/local being a sym-link to /local ... up one level. Doesn't sound like anyone thinks that is really a problem. I've got another one. Will make that another subject for proper threading. -- R; <>< On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 13:55, Richard Troth <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
