Subject: Re: disk partition size
To: Robert.V.Baron <email@example.com>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 12/06/1997 17:57:38
>It seems that there are differences as to how to lay out the disk ;-).
Yes. That's why there's a ``custom'' menu. Frankly I've never found
the `standard' setups useful either, but they do at least give a
complete novice a system that should work. IMHO that's the strongest
reason to not ditch them.
>I even like the layout describe in the "example" above. What issue, I
>think, remains is what should the default for the "naive" user be. I'd
>prefer something like this "example" than the current defaults.
Uh, feel free to suggest that to the i386 portmaster :).
>One reason I like to separate the system (/root /usr) from my code
>(/usr1 [this would include pkg, x, emacs) is so I can do an "upgrade
>by wiping /root&/usr. What I don't like about the current upgrade
>scheme is that it just overwrites what is there (on root & usr).
So that there is a lot of dead stuff.
The old sh scripts now have a list of pathname pairs (a, b): if b
exists, remove a. (or possibly the other way around.
This didn't make it into release(7) despite a couple of requests.
IMHO, that's a critical bug. We're already answering `bug reports'
due to obsolete, now-broken /sbin/nfsd binaries.