Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:59:07 +0000 From: krad <kraduk@gmail.com> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: Mike Clarke <jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Where do user files go these days? Message-ID: <CALfReydPx%2Bwma%2BYxghh=aaRB96%2BDDfeMMP9X=2wwMQ8rj%2Bbj7g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20141109204748.db54a1cc.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <545ED36B.8040207@gmail.com> <545F5AD6.6000404@FreeBSD.org> <545F7B85.1050900@qeng-ho.org> <3272471.UYQ3DxhorQ@curlew.lan> <20141109204748.db54a1cc.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I dont even see the point of /usr any more when you are talking about BE's, /usr/local is also questionable to be outside of the BE if all it contains in binaries and config On 9 November 2014 19:47, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote: > On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 15:30:10 +0000, Mike Clarke wrote: > > I've never understood the logic of putting /home under /usr. If you > > ever needed to do a fresh install from scratch it would be all too > > easy to wipe out all of home when you delete the original contents of > > /usr. > > Exactly, that is a problem to expect. I think this idea > comes from the "fixed partition size at initialization" > paradigm where you had to choose how big each partition > should be, and you could not create more than a - h partitions > (in the MBR manner). So you thought: / is that big, then > add swap, /var should be limited to so and so, and the > rest - well, that will be for installed applications and > user files, because we don't know how big they might get. > If we make /usr too small, we'll run out of space, and > if /home is full, well, users can't store any more data... > > With GPT and "numerical partitions", this problem does > not apply anymore. ZFS can also deal perfectly fine with > varying numbers of partitions of varying size. > > And hard disks are also big and cheap. :-) > > > > > It goes against the FreeBSD approach of /usr containing material > > for the base system and /usr/local for the rest. It might have been > > more appropriate to have /usr/local/home but still far safer to have a > > top level /home directory. > > By "deduction" (applied from "man hier"), /usr/local is > for installed applications which are managed by the system's > package maintaining means (ports collection, pkg, portmaster, > whatever you want). But user files are _not_ subject to > that maintaining, so they should not be in there. > > (That is _one_ possible way of interpretation.) > > > > > > -- > Polytropon > Magdeburg, Germany > Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 > Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALfReydPx%2Bwma%2BYxghh=aaRB96%2BDDfeMMP9X=2wwMQ8rj%2Bbj7g>