2012/10/9 Jochen Schmitt wrote: > I want to disagree with your suggestion. /root is the home directory of > the superuser and should not be placed on a network device in opposite > of the home directories of the ordinary users. The user root should be > able to logon without a network connection to do any rescue work on > the system. This argument would work for original UsrMove feature. But it's already done. Right now user `root` cannot login without /usr being mounted, because it needs at least bash, which is now /usr/bin/bash. Moving /root to /usr is just consistent continuation of implemented UsrMove. > I want to consider, that /etc should be mounted on a writeable partition > in opposite of /usr to allow changes without remounting. Probably you're right, but I can't think of any real-world examples where it would be needed. Can you name some? My line of reasoning was: if you're managing a set of machines with shared /usr you always want /etc to be shared too. It's a pain for admin to install/update some software and then run across all the machines to set up new /etc files everywhere. And as long as /etc is also shared among multiple machines it should be read-only as well as /usr. This is needed at least as a security measure, so you could be sure that some bug on one machine won't break everything else. > your test case didn't hit your suggestion of remove the /etc > directory. It did. :) Check the following line closely: # mv -f /root /etc /usr/; ln -s usr/root usr/etc / It actually does not hit the /tmp case (mount-bind is used instead of symlink). But that's solely because of systemd becoming extremely unhappy when /tmp is a symlink. -- Serge -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
