Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 13 Nov 2014 14:59:07 +0000
From:      krad <kraduk@gmail.com>
To:        Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de>
Cc:        Mike Clarke <jmc-freebsd2@milibyte.co.uk>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Where do user files go these days?
Message-ID:  <CALfReydPx+wma+Yxghh=aaRB96+DDfeMMP9X=2wwMQ8rj+bj7g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20141109204748.db54a1cc.freebsd@edvax.de>
References:  <545ED36B.8040207@gmail.com> <545F5AD6.6000404@FreeBSD.org> <545F7B85.1050900@qeng-ho.org> <3272471.UYQ3DxhorQ@curlew.lan> <20141109204748.db54a1cc.freebsd@edvax.de>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
I dont even see the point of /usr any more when you are talking about BE's,
/usr/local is also questionable to be outside of the BE if all it contains
in binaries and config

On 9 November 2014 19:47, Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> wrote:

> On Sun, 09 Nov 2014 15:30:10 +0000, Mike Clarke wrote:
> > I've never understood the logic of putting /home under /usr. If you
> > ever needed to do a fresh install from scratch it would be all too
> > easy to wipe out all of home when you delete the original contents of
> > /usr.
>
> Exactly, that is a problem to expect. I think this idea
> comes from the "fixed partition size at initialization"
> paradigm where you had to choose how big each partition
> should be, and you could not create more than a - h partitions
> (in the MBR manner). So you thought: / is that big, then
> add swap, /var should be limited to so and so, and the
> rest - well, that will be for installed applications and
> user files, because we don't know how big they might get.
> If we make /usr too small, we'll run out of space, and
> if /home is full, well, users can't store any more data...
>
> With GPT and "numerical partitions", this problem does
> not apply anymore. ZFS can also deal perfectly fine with
> varying numbers of partitions of varying size.
>
> And hard disks are also big and cheap. :-)
>
>
>
> > It goes against the FreeBSD approach of /usr containing material
> > for the base system and /usr/local for the rest. It might have been
> > more appropriate to have /usr/local/home but still far safer to have a
> > top level /home directory.
>
> By "deduction" (applied from "man hier"), /usr/local is
> for installed applications which are managed by the system's
> package maintaining means (ports collection, pkg, portmaster,
> whatever you want). But user files are _not_ subject to
> that maintaining, so they should not be in there.
>
> (That is _one_ possible way of interpretation.)
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Polytropon
> Magdeburg, Germany
> Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
> Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "
> freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALfReydPx+wma+Yxghh=aaRB96+DDfeMMP9X=2wwMQ8rj+bj7g>