| |||||||||||||
The case for the /usr mergeThe case for the /usr mergePosted Jan 27, 2012 5:38 UTC (Fri) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955)In reply to: The case for the /usr merge by rickmoen Parent article: The case for the /usr merge
Even that aside, it's highly likely that two deliberately small, seldom modified filesystems will be available even if much-vaster, far more dynamic /usr cannot be mounted and must be repaired. The root filesystem is not seldom modified; in fact, until recently it was very difficult to avoid having to mount it read-write.
(Log in to post comments)
The case for the /usr merge Posted Jan 27, 2012 20:01 UTC (Fri) by ttonino (subscriber, #4073) [Link]
I thought that /sbin and /usr/sbin were supposed to be the 'rescue' directories.
As far as I'm concerned, move everything to a central location (/usr/bin is fine) and keep statically linked _copies_ (or busybox) for rescue work.
That should keep that FS even more static and likely to be available. And package management will keep it up to date.
|
|||||||||||||