On Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 02:28:25AM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 01:21:05 +0100, Miroslav wrote in message
> <075cb09d-9f17-1610-ced5-7ad556f5e5a4@???>:
>
> > On 11/17/18 3:18 PM, Didier Kryn wrote:
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > >     The advantage of separating /usr is it can be mounted after
> > > boot. /bin and /sbin (and /lib) contain the critical applications
> > > (and library) necessary to boot the system, and they are, by
> > > necessity, part of the root filesystem. Merging /usr means,
> > > actually merging /usr/bin with /bin, /usr/sbin with /sbin
> > > and /usr/lib with /lib.
> > >
> > >     Merging /usr means all the bloat from /usr/bin and /usr/lib
> > > will now be in /bin and /lib (not so much bloat in /usr/sbin). This
> > > has very
> >
> >
> > Two more questions:
> >
> > 1. Installing (too many) software from repositories tends to fill in
> > /usr to the point it screams for space (particularly in older
> > machines with smaller HDD). However it seems to me that the root
> > filesystem is still happy in such cases. But what in case of merger?
> > Can the whole system be rendered unusable? (Or screaming?)
>
> ..easily IME, just put _everything_ in / , then fire up aptitude and
> pick the "Not Installed Packages (42209)" and see what happens. ;o)
>
> ..I killed it at 160%+81.something% load to bail out this time. :o)
> >
> > 2. What about local compilations of various 3rd party software that
> > usually go to /usr/local/bin, sbin, lib, ... in case of merger will
> > they all go to the root filesystem? More potential trouble? Yes/No?
> > Tnx.
>
> ..you want these on its own disk, or at least on their own disk
> partitions, like your /home tree.

I can see no reason why /usr/local shouldn't be mounted as a separate
partition even if /usr isn't.

-- hendrik