Re: [cobalt-users] Symbolic link for /usr directory

[Revd leonard payne <vicarage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 6/6/01 10:10 pm, Johan Pretorius at johan@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> This is all about claiming back space from the root filesystem ...
> 
>> One option is to copy the /usr directory to /home/usr, and create a
> symbolic
>> link such as /usr -> /home/usr.  Is there any reason why one should *not*
<snip>


> shimi replied:
> 
>> A symbolic link is transparent to the software. The programs don't even
>> know they're writing to a different directory than the one they've
>> requested. There's no problem at all doing what you want to do...

<snip> 


> Others weren't all that sure:
> 
>> However, i'd verify that ldconfig is run *after* mounting /home if you do
>> this, as there are shared libraries in /usr/lib ;)
> 
>> Also, doing this means many of your system tools won't be available if you
>> have to boot the machine with /home not mounted for maintainance..
> 
>> Perhaps just move /usr/local ?

<snip> 
> .....
> 
> I decided to ask Sun Cobalt the same question - they reckon it is a
> bad idea altogether:
> 
>>>> 
> I'm sorry, but we cannot recommend or assist with modifications to the
> server of
> that nature at this basic level of support.

"Nothing comes for free"


<snip>


Well with all due respect to Sun/Cobalt, never have I come across
such a piece of PYA in my life.

Quote
>>>One possible problem I can think of might be
>>>some binary files have special permissions that may not be carried through on
>>>symlinks.
Unquote

What precisely? If I  mv all of /usr across to /home/usr - why would
permissions not be carried across.

The truth is that at Basic Level Support, the safest for Sun Cobalt to say
is NO - However if you want to pay for Professional Services, it can be done

Sheesh

Unless anyone can some up with a good - proven - reason why not
then I would go for it.

Blessings
Revd Leonard