David Laight wrote:
> 
> That all depends what you think /usr is for!
> I don't see a big need to separate / and /usr.
> 
Perhaps it's just my faulty memory of what's gone before, but I've 
always thought of / as a carefully maintained area where variable 
per system security conscious material is kept, and the structure 
and files (especially /root and /etc) needed protection from wild 
(or accidental) expansion from rogue activity.

While /usr is the static, rarely changing, sharable, read-only, 
union-mountable (maybe even on a CDROM) area that expands as new 
user programs (and packages) are added by root (and never by users). 

Thus, I agree that / and /usr could be combined on a single user 
workstation, where the same person maintains everything.  The only 
person you hurt will be yourself.  Although the hurt could be drastic.

But, on a file server (where many persons might be accessing the 
machine) or development machine (where the programs frequently change, 
the build scripts can accidently blow away whole directories, etc), 
I'd really prefer to have /usr separate.


> /home and /bsd (a current bsd source/build tree) are separate for
> obvious reasons.  I have another bsd tree in /oldroot/usr...
> 
I keep mine in /home/NBSD1.6T/src (currently), but same idea -- never 
in /usr/src.


> A separate fs for /usr/pkg wouldmake more sense than one for /usr
> 
On a development machine, I certainly agree, especially a system 
development machine, where /usr gets overwritten by build.sh often.  

That would be akin to Linux, which keeps packages in /opt, according 
to http://www.pathname.com/fhs/ ?

Do we want to change /usr/pkg to /opt?


> > True.  But I'd like systinst to have good estimates of what those sizes
> > are likely to be, as this has always been a common newbie question
> > (where newbie is even those of us migrating from 1 *BSD to another).
> 
> Trouble is they are questions like 'how long is a piece of string'...
> 
As already noted, these are just templates for installation, that can 
be changed by the skilled operator.  I like the idea that 
 - good defaults are presented, 
 - good examples are available to educate newbies, and 
 - common configurations are supported without extensive modification.


> > > If you actually run the code, you'll see that I've really merged
> > > 'custom' with the other options (I should probably delete custom)
> > > so you always get to choose your file system sizes.
> > >
> > Haven't tried it yet.  But always showing the results and allowing
> > modification is a Good Thing.  Delete custom.
> 
> I'm actually tempted to delete the 'with X' from that stage.
> I suspect the man pages make as much difference.
> 
please, delete 'with X'

although man pages aren't available during installation.... ;-)


> > > /var (and /home) have not been separated by default (at least on i386).
> > > To someone who is installing for the first time 'all the space in one fs'
> > > will make them less unhappy later on.
> > >
> > Only for a workstation.  For a server of any kind, they really should
> > be separate.  And a lot of *BSD use is for servers.
> 
> I didn't say they shouldn't be.  /home in particular.

OK, we're in agreement on something -- for development (both single and 
multiuser), separate / and /home?

Why separate /home for mail/WWW servers?  My experience is that on 
servers /var is the big variable, and /home is vestigial.

That's why I wrote:
 - Server would split out /, /tmp, /var, and /usr. 
 - Development would split out /, /usr, and /home!  


> Also server installers are not normally totally clueless!
> 
Ah, I can tell you don't own an ISP....  Once staff is well trained, 
they have a tendency to leave (or go to grad school), while customers 
(heavy sigh) ....
-- 
William Allen Simpson
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32