default partition scheme without /home - why ?

[Les Mikesell]

Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 02:06:56PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 11:31:25AM -0500, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
>>>> I can think of a good reason for a separate /home:  upgrade paths.  I 
>>>> know we are getting better at it, but it can still be problematic if one 
>>>> tries to install over a previous installation, and it is usually pretty 
>>>> smooth to just format / while leaving /home intact.
>>> +1
>> But that means you need to guess relative sizes for / and /home or offer 
>> some understandable choices.
> 
> Not if you make it dead-easy to resize LVM partitions.


I'll believe that when I see it.  If you reserve unused space that can 
be used to grow either partition, you'll cause unnecessary trouble when 
the artificially-small portions fill up.  If you don't, you'll have to 
shrink the filesystem with extra space before you can grow the full one.

However, back to guessing sizes - a developer's guess about how much 
space it might take in various places to accommodate the next few fedora 
releases might be better than a new user's.   Also, with a fast-paced 
disto like fedora, it would be nice to have a planned mechanism to make 
upgrades dual-boot.  That is, reserve space for an alternate / and /boot 
from the beginning with everything that needs to be preserved across 
upgrades in /home, then make the next version install in the reserved 
spots and set up a dual-boot back to the previous.  It's probably too 
much to ask from the upstream apps to maintain compatibility in their 
file formats, though.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at gmail.com