Hi,

I have a single partition with users home directories (traditionally /
home) and
additionnal software (traditionally /usr/local).
What would be the mount point of such partition ?

Could it be /usr/local ?
According to Wikipedia on Filesystem Hierarchy Standard:
/usr/local is a "Tertiary hierarchy for local data, specific to this
host. Typically has further subfolders, eg. bin/, lib/, share/."
So it seems to be the place to do it. But the problem is that /usr/
local/home seems strange: is not complient with the Filesystem
Hierarchy Standard

Thanks for your opinions/experience

PS: I do not need technical details on how to do it but rather opinion
about the rational of such mont point

Begin <a8aacc37-0ed6-4797-963e-35b6c6c27353@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:31:57 -0800 (PST),
totorolm@gmail.com <totorolm@gmail.com> wrote:
Traditionally, /usr. But that was a really long time ago.


Anywhere you wish. After all, it's up to you how to put your system
together. You could try and, oh, symlink /home to /usr/local/home, for
example. As it happens, my main workbox' /home is a large partition that
has lots of other stuff symlinked from /usr, with the goal of mounting
/usr read-only. /usr/local is a distinct mount, though.

With doing such things it falls to you to make sure the parts of the
system that depend on the paths you just changed are updated, of course.


That is mostly a linux thing, and moreover, more important to
distribution makers. My system of choice (FreeBSD) comes with a hier(7)
that explains how the distribution is laid out. A quick look around the
collection of manpages (including for different systems) on the FreeBSD
project site[man] shows that not all systems have such a manpage. Those
that do offer interesting comparative material.

If it is about a single user system, it doesn't really matter. Even for
large scale unix installations it doesn't matter if you make up your
own, as long as the site documentation is being kept updated. The FHS
is just /a/ way of doing things, not necessairily /the/ way. It arose
exactly because linux comes in so many distributions, all different.


[man] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi

--
j p d (at) d s b (dot) t u d e l f t (dot) n l .
This message was originally posted on Usenet in plain text.
Any other representation, additions, or changes do not have my
consent and may be a violation of international copyright law.

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 03:31:57 -0800 (PST), totorolm@gmail.com <totorolm@gmail.com> wrote:
I've used /local for this with a loopback mount into that for whatver I
want to use. Google "lofs". The benefit is that /local can be another
drive with plenty of room that you don't have to slice in any particular
way, just use it as a big pool of available disk. Looks like/is a mount
to the OS but without being tied to a specific size.

No problems, it works great.

Dave Hinz wrote:
and then share that mount point nfs with all the other machines (the
mount point is /export/home).

This eliminates all of the other machines to have copies of all of the
crap I am working on all over the place - it's all in /export/home/DeadSpam.

Ed