RHEL 5 : statically linked shell for root?

hike mh1272 at gmail.com
Thu May 29 13:05:20 UTC 2008


On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:52 AM, mark <m.roth2006 at rcn.com> wrote:

> hike wrote:
> > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Rubens Gomes <rubens_gomes at hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> <snip>
> > My question is. "Why do you make a separate mount point for /usr?".
> >
> > In the old days of UNIX/SunOS, the hard drives were small and we were
> forced
> > to have separate mount points for /, /var, /usr, /opt, /usr/openwin for
> > SunOS, /home.  This and the possibility of actually filling a filesystem
> to
> > 100% were the only real reasons for separating the filesystems that I was
> > ever given.
> <snip>
> As I said in the article I published in SysAdmin last year (before it went
> under) on upgrading Linux, you want that so that when you do an upgrade,
> you
> can rename it, then have a new partition for /usr, and let the install
> format
> that. That way, a) it's a "clean install", and b) you can fall back with a
> few
> renames in single user mode.
>
>        mark
>
> --
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>


Mark,

You just need space for another filesystem if you want to do what you
indicate what the article says and do not, necessarily, need to separate
your filesystems.  (Why make things more difficult when they have gone to
all the trouble to simplify our work lives.  AND, that's why we do backups.)

By the way, I enjoy how you are always quoting/referring to article.  You
must be quite proud of yourself.  Funny though, you never tell which issue
of Sysadmin your ariticle was in!

LOL



More information about the redhat-list mailing list