El lun, 01-08-2011 a las 13:30 +0200, Marc Schiffbauer escribió: > * Pacho Ramos schrieb am 01.08.11 um 13:19 Uhr: > > El lun, 01-08-2011 a las 13:12 +0200, Marc Schiffbauer escribió: > > [...] > > > * /usr/portage can get very huge and is often written to. With > > > / and /usr being on the same FS you really want to have > > > /usr/portage on a seperate FS then > > > > > > I am sure there are some other reasons too. > > > > > > Just my 2¢ > > > > > > -Marc > > > > Having /usr/portage on a different partition will still be supported if > > I understood correctly (at least, it still works fine for me even having > > the rest of /usr under / partition) > > yes. My point was, that if you have a separate /usr you may be ok > with no seperate /usr/portage > > -Marc
Well, I guess it depends on every administrator :-), for example in my case I use a separate partition for it to have it mounted without "notail" reiserfs option (as "tail" is slower in "normal" conditions), allowing me to spend around 300 MB on it instead of 3,5G. That way, I would have it in a separate partition even having /usr on a separate one. But this is probably a bit off-topic :-)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
