Re: usr & usr/local
- From: Dan Espen <daneNO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:01:50 -0400
Jan Gerrit Kootstra <jan.gerrit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Dan Espen wrote:
"tractng@xxxxxxxxx" <tractng@xxxxxxxxx> writes:Dan,
Guys,Holy crap Tony, like Bit, I'm appalled at your command
Might be a dump question, but the directory size on these two
directories are not independent of each other?
I am manually partition them. Can I have usr directory smaller than
usr/local directory?
Logically, it shows user/local under usr directory.
of English. Make sure you take a lot of English courses.
Also be a bit more careful when asking technical questions.
Spelling "/usr" as "user" and "usr" doesn't help.
So, if you type in "df" you may or may not see
the size of /usr and /usr/local. It all depends
on how the disk was partitioned and the mount points
defined.
For example, /usr/local might be a mount point of
it's own and /usr might be part of the "/" mount point.
Like this system:
dan> df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/part6
20153140 4001196 15128204 21% /
/dev/ide/host0/bus0/target0/lun0/part8
10072456 394508 9166280 5% /usr/local
You might be appaled by Tony's English. Poor you, not all people are
English native speakers. By the way, I ever knew that there where
moderators on this Usenet Newsgroup.
As I pointed out, Tony's errors went beyond just language abilities.
I am worried by your lack of application of the LSB. Making /usr a
part of the root-filesystem instead of a mountpoint of a filesystem on
it's own.
Bull.
Without looking I'm sure the LSB says nothing about how /usr is mounted.
.
- References:
- usr & usr/local
- From: tractng@xxxxxxxxx
- Re: usr & usr/local
- From: Dan Espen
- Re: usr & usr/local
- From: Jan Gerrit Kootstra
- usr & usr/local
- Prev by Date: Re: usr & usr/local
- Next by Date: bash problem & ssh problem
- Previous by thread: Re: usr & usr/local
- Next by thread: Red hat Enterprise Update 8 ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|