Hello,

I don't think it so much a case of "must have" as "would like to".

Personally I like to try to get as much out into separate partitions so
as to allow a new OS install without disrupting non rpm binaries, user
setups etc., etc.. Apart from the loss of 1 GIMP script I did a complete
install of Mandrake 9.0 without upsetting anything else at all.

I must confess that at the moment the /root partition is indeed almost
empty, but there have been times in the past when programs have been
installed as root in the /root partition. Whether this is bad or not is
a separate discussion but I have the choice to do it or not.

If open source is about choice then by all means have a default to put
the root directory in the / partition, but don't stop people from
deciding to put it somewhere else.

Moreover, not allowing the root directory to go wherever the user wants
during install is so easy to correct the first time the system is booted
why bother putting that constraint on the install process at all ?!?!

Owen

Han Boetes wrote:
 >
 > OS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
 >
 >>On Saturday 05 Oct 2002 6:24 pm, Peter Ruskin wrote:
 >>
 >>>On Saturday 05 Oct 2002 17:37, Bob Walker wrote:
 >>>
 >>>>On Saturday 05 October 2002 03:46 am, Peter Ruskin wrote:
 >>>>
 >>>>>On Friday 04 Oct 2002 02:43, Dave Seff wrote:
 >>>>>
 >>>>>
 >>>>>>Why must /root be on the same file system as / ?
 >>>>>>
 >>>>>>I keep mine separate as not to wipe out  ssh  keys  and  other
 >>>>>>things. I can change it after the initial install and  all  is
 >>>>>>fine, but the installer complains.
 >>>>>
 >>>>>I asked this and Pixel responded by requesting a good reason for
 >>>>>allowing /root to have its own partition. My reason is  that  it
 >>>>>is root's home and I don't want it wiped when I reinstall.  I've
 >>>>>always worked like that. Who decided that it's taboo?
 >>>>>
 >>>>>/root on my 9.0 machine is now on its own partition, just as  in
 >>>>>my other unices. I have yet to  see  a  good  reason  given  for
 >>>>>disallowing this on install - to me it's draconian interference.
 >>>>
 >>>>According to Version 2.2  of  the  Filesystem  Hierarchy  Standard
 >>>>(FHS), /root is not a requirement - it is  optional.  However,  if
 >>>>the root directory is used, it must be in /. 'root' CAN exist as a
 >>>>link to a directory or as a mounted partition.
 >>>
 >>>There. Thanks Bob. So there is no reason why /root should not be  on
 >>>a separate partition - just as I thought. Pixel, can you now  change
 >>>the installer to allow this?
 >>
 >>I agree ! I had to install a root directory in / and then copy it to a
 >>partition called /root !!
 >
 >
 > Well it seems to be a very low priority. I mean you  shouldn't  use  the
 > root account, you should use su/sudo so if you keep that  in  mind  your
 > /root should be rather empty.
 >
 > I think most beginners don't know how to configure their shell  so  they
 > do what's ``logical'' to them and start customizing the root account.
 >
 > On OpenBSD the default root-shell is csh and a lot of people panic  when
 > are confronted with a shell without history and tab-completion so it's a
 > faq where I wrote a document for:
 >
 >   http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/change_root_shell.html
 >
 > Most of it applies to any unix.
 >
 > The argument I heard that somebody uses it as a backup: Well you can use
 > another backup-partition and make a dir that is only readable by root.
 >
 > So again I see no clear reason that you _must_ have a  /root  partition.
 > Not that it shouldn't be possible to have one according to the  FHS  but
 > it's very low priority to comply with it.
 >
 > But perhaps I am missing something and can you folks present me  with  a
 > convincing argument that doesn't need multiple exclamationmarks.
 >
 >
 >
 > Groetjes, Han.



Reply via email to