Hi,

When I say non-compliant I mean that your configuration doesn't match their assumptions. If you do a default install you get everything, including /home in a single partition. Putting /usr on a separate partition is ..unusual.. these days. Yes /var can explode if you don't limit your logs, so you can justify putting that on a seperate partition but as the reference I gave pointed out splitting out /usr was just a pragmatic decision made to deal with small disk sizes in the early days of *nix.
That said, for similar reason to yourself, I do have /tmp and /vmail on separate partitions on my mail server but not /usr.
So we are where we are and your configuration is non-compliant with the assumptions behind usrmerge and a roadblock to upgrading to Excalibur. You either need to put your /usr back on the same partition as /, the other partitions could still be separate, or you will have to migrate to another distribution that doesn't enforce this or you can stick around on old stable, which is still supported for now.

(apologies for top-posting, this is written on my phone, which only allows that!).
--
Marjorie

On 29 June 2026 23:59:45 BST, o1bigtenor <o1bigtenor@???> wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 5:03 PM Marjorie Roome <amusing@???> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 2026-06-29 at 12:33 -0500, o1bigtenor via Dng wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 11:37 AM Lorenz via Dng <dng@???>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 4:36 PM Hendrik Boom
>> > > <hendrik@???> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > what happens if during usrmerge you run out of space on /usr ?
>> > > > does usrmerge back out gracefully, leaving the system intact?
>> > >
>> > > I don't know for sure, maybe it has some sefaguards. If you can
>> > > readperl, usrmerge is a perl script
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > is there a good way of estimating how much space will be needed
>> > >
>> > > roughly, the sum of the following
>> > > # du -hs /bin
>> > > # du -hs /sbin
>> > > # du -hs /lib
>> > > # du -hs /lib64
>> > > what it does, I think, is to copy everything in the above dirs
>> > > into
>> > > their /usr counterparts,
>> > > so /bin into /usr/bin and so on, and then it replaces /bin, /sbin
>> > > and
>> > > so on with symlinks to
>> > > their user counterparts. It's not an atomic move, if you are
>> > > wondering.
>> > > you might need twice the above space because it may copy stuff in
>> > > /bin /sbin/ /lib /lib64 to a backup before removing it (not sure).
>> > > It's not a large amount of space, usually.
>> > >
>> > > > so i can repartition first if necessary?
>> > >
>> > > this question rings a bell: I'm not sure that's your case but I
>> > > think the only thing that is not supported in a usrmerged system is
>> > > to have a /usr partition separate from root.
>> >
>> > Please - - - - could you check if this is true?
>> >
>> > If it is this is why I cannot boot what I call my trial box.
>> >
>> > I've been running these separate partitions
>> > /
>> > /boot
>> > /usr
>> > /usr/local
>> > swap
>> > /var
>> > /home
>> >
>> > for some almost 20 years.
>> > Have had a lot of issues keeping /usr large enough (think this box is
>> > at
>> > 25 GB).
>> From how you describe your system I wouldn't be surprised if you might
>> be falling foul of the copy space issue but also having your systems
>> files now in /usr on a separate partition so not being accessible on
>> boot.
>>
>> I suspect usrmerge is not detecting your non-compliant configuration
>> and breaking you system. Apt is similarly unhelpful in not telling you
>> about temporary space required when upgrading until you have actually
>> exhausted it.
>
>Hmmmm - - - - I like that - - - - non-compliant - - - - who decided that?
>When I switched to having 7 partitions it was on the advice from my guru
>who informed that it had not been that long before when his /var partition
>had exploded (some goofy error that made him growly for a few days)
>and had chocked /var and because he still /var in his / partition he had a
>devil of a time getting things happy. His suggestion is what I"ve been
>running ever since.
>
>So some decided that every user should have only 3 partitions - - -
>/ swap and /home - - - and this is MANDATORY.
>I never received such a notice - - - - has anyone out there?
>
>I'm using SSDs in (IIRC) a RAID1 configuration for each and every
>different partition. The idea is maximum operational security.
>>
>> I found this reference on Mastodon as to why we got into the current
>> historical existence of /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, usr/sbin.
>> https://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html
>> TL;DR there's no logical reason these days to split where we put our
>> binaries.
>
>No logical reason - - - - but there is something called choice - - - yes?
>(I had read something similar a number of years ago and just went - -
>I have the option and have used it - - - .)
>>
>> I think the same may largely apply to not putting everything but /home
>> and /swap on the same root partition. By using LLM2 you can also
>> spread your partition(s) over more than one disk, as well as to
>> dynamically allocate more space to them as required.
>
>LLM and its siblings makes for another level of possible issues.
>(I have been using btrfs for a while too.)
>
>I haven't had an issue with partition spill over in about 7 years and that
>was because I had so many packages installed. So when I built this
>system - - - it was taken care of!
>
>It would appear that we are being shoehorned into a single type of
>setup - - - I'm not sure why - - - - but - - - - NO THANK YOU!
>
>Regards