Re: Wrong Second HD Partition During 9.2 Install - Best Way To Fix It?

From: Johannes Engel (j-engel_at_gmx.de)
Date: 04/12/05 

Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:38:40 +0200

John Hinkey schrieb:
> Installed 9.2 on to a brand new WinXP machine that has two HDs
>
> I had intended for the first HD to be the boot with both WinXP and Suse
> installed along with a FAT32 partition to share files between the two.
>
> The second hard drive was not formatted or partitioned prior to install
> and I had intended it to be a single partition meant for a working
> directory that would contain only data files.
>
> Suse install went OK, but I mistakenly made the second HD (sdb) be
> partitioned as /usr and when SUSE installed everything my hard drives
> now look like
>
> Filesystem Mounted on
> /dev/sda7 /
> tmpfs /dev/shm
> /dev/sdb1 /usr
> /dev/sda1 /windows/C
> /dev/sda5 /windows/D
>
> under the /usr directory I have
>
> /bin
> /games
> /include
> /lib
> /lib64
> /local
> /sbin
> /share
> /src
> /tmp
> /x11
> /x11R6
> /x86_64-suse-linux
>
> when I expected (wanted) there to be nothing at all - no
> sub-directories at all. Should I have made the second hd /usr1 or
> something?
That depends on what you want to have. ;) For the things you told us the
behaviour of SuSE is quite natural. The folders up there belong to the
/usr tree. If you want a spare partition, you will have to choose a
different mount-point.

> What is the best way go back and have the second hd be just /usr1 or
> something like that?
Maybe it is possible to copy the files of the /usr tree to the first hd,
then dismount the second hd and correct the entry in the /etc/fstab.

> A full reinstall would not be a pain since I've not installed any
> software or data at all - is that the option?
Maybe it's an option, but I think not the best one. ;)

> Thanks for any help
>
> John
Greetings, Johannes Engel