Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> And even then, the only thing that happens is that those files which where
> reattached there are now deleted. As finding what file it actually is is
> hard, and in the case of a /usr/portage partition/disk also pointless,
> there is no harm whatsoever in losing this dir
On Tuesday 14 February 2006 18:55, Richard Fish wrote:
> On 2/14/06, Peter Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I did that some time ago in a simple-minded fashion, but I've had to
> > revise my layout somewhat. I had an ext3 partition solely for
> > /usr/portage, and it was mounted on that node
On 2/14/06, Peter Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did that some time ago in a simple-minded fashion, but I've had to revise
> my layout somewhat. I had an ext3 partition solely for /usr/portage, and it
> was mounted on that node, but every emerge --sync deleted the /lost+found
> directory.
Nuitari wrote:
chattr +i /lost+found
would have probably worked
Good idea. As usual, I didn't think of it myself. Thanks anyway.
--
Rgds
Peter
--
gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
I did that some time ago in a simple-minded fashion, but I've had to revise
my layout somewhat. I had an ext3 partition solely for /usr/portage, and it
was mounted on that node, but every emerge --sync deleted the /lost+found
directory. I don't know how serious that is, but of course no-one like
Gavin Seddon wrote:
From reading these posts I have sorted out
'other' issues that are off list. Namely [...] creating a
partition for /usr/portage to 'aid' fragmentation.
I did that some time ago in a simple-minded fashion, but I've had to revise
my layout somewhat. I had an ext3 partition s
Completely agree, Duncan. From reading these posts I have sorted out
'other' issues that are off list. Namely sgi stuff and the creating a
partition for /usr/portage to 'aid' fragmentation.
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 03:00 -0700, Duncan wrote:
> Sebastian Redl posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted b
Sebastian Redl posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below,
on Wed, 08 Feb 2006 23:59:19 +0100:
> Duncan wrote:
>
>>### udf (packet written optical) slow, but s/b b4 iso9660 if present.
>> ###
>>
>>
> Completely off-topic, but thank you for this info. I wondered how to
> acc
