Le 06.02.2014 11:03, Scott Ferguson a écrit :
On 06/02/14 20:09, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
Le 05.02.2014 19:31, John Hasler a écrit :
yaro wrote:
Separate /usr is unneeded and actually complicates boot for little
benefit.
It allows you to mount it read-only (or not at all when there's a
problem). It only complicates boot due to the practice of putting
stuff
that belongs under / under /usr.
Do you have some example? I would like to learn that kind of issues
*before* they happen to me :)
An fsck error.
In which case it's quicker to run e2fsck on just /usr than on the
entire /
I meant an example of stuff which should be in / but are in fact in
/usr.
NOTE: I don't see why a "desktop" user would need a separate /usr for
any other reason - but I'll keep following the post thread just in
case.
Kind regards
Filling /usr enough to make it explode? If it is in /, then it is said
( here and there ) that it may cause problems. However I do not have
enough knowledge myself to know if it is true.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1fc418cf8f24d0ae3edebc30d79e7...@neutralite.org
