On Mar 24, 2014, at 6:45 AM, lee lee@yun.yagibdah.de wrote:
Suvayu Ali fatkasuvayu+linux@gmail.com writes:
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 10:56:13PM +0100, lee wrote:
There`s nothing weird or exotic about it. I`ve always had /usr on its own partition until the F17 installer refused that, which it shouldn`t have.
I'm sorry but the installer denying /usr on its own partition on F17 is the right thing to do. I believe F17 introduced something called usr-move, meaning all the binaries in /bin /sbin are actually hardlinks/symlinks to /usr/bin and /usr/sbin. I believe this was a multi-distribution effort. In such a configuration, there is no justification or gain of putting it in a separate partition, on top of that the booting process becomes quite complicated.
/usr belongs on it`s own partition.
As if no one has ever said that before, and as if it convinced even one thinking person to change their mind.
Fedora has never defaulted to separate /usr partition. It's been two years since this was decided. That you're still experiencing cognitive dissonance over this ancient long ago resolve topic is your problem, not anyone else's.
And last time I looked, it would not be compliant with the FHS not to have what is needed in /bin and /sbin but to use symlinks instead.
bin lib lib64 are symlinks to their locations in /usr.
Chris Murphy