On Mar 24, 2014, at 6:45 AM, lee <lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Suvayu Ali <fatkasuvayu+linux@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:56:13PM +0100, lee wrote: >>> >>> There`s nothing weird or exotic about it. I`ve always had /usr on its >>> own partition until the F17 installer refused that, which it shouldn`t >>> have. >> >> I'm sorry but the installer denying /usr on its own partition on F17 is >> the right thing to do. I believe F17 introduced something called >> usr-move, meaning all the binaries in /bin /sbin are actually >> hardlinks/symlinks to /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. I believe this was a >> multi-distribution effort. In such a configuration, there is no >> justification or gain of putting it in a separate partition, on top of >> that the booting process becomes quite complicated. > > /usr belongs on it`s own partition. As if no one has ever said that before, and as if it convinced even one thinking person to change their mind. Fedora has never defaulted to separate /usr partition. It's been two years since this was decided. That you're still experiencing cognitive dissonance over this ancient long ago resolve topic is your problem, not anyone else's. > And last time I looked, it would > not be compliant with the FHS not to have what is needed in /bin and > /sbin but to use symlinks instead. bin lib lib64 are symlinks to their locations in /usr. Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
