On 07/28/2011 03:50 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote: > My understanding of the history of /usr/local's nomenclature is that it > was intended to be "local" to the machine (and thus not NFS mounted). I always understood it to be site local rather than machine local - the FHS states that it may be used for programs and data shareable amongst a group of hosts (but again, NFS mounted /usr, /usr/local or even separate (but local) /usr has some problems today). > Your point applies just as well to /usr; but I think the intent was for > NFS-mounted /usr to accommodate a single point of installation in > homogeneous environments; supporting heterogeneous environments just > wasn't the point. > > My impression is that NFS-mounted /usr is pretty uncommon these > days--and perhaps unheard-of using Linux. It's not unheard of historically but see for e.g.: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken > NFS-mounted $HOME, however, continues to be relatively common and > certainly warrants consideration. Agreed. Regards, Bryn. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
