Subject: Draft 2 of FILE SYSTEM STRUCTURE

From: [email-masked] (Michael K. Johnson)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 15:59:09 CST

I vote yes on the file system structure as proposed.

I don't particularily like /usr/src/usr.{bin,lib} (I would prefer
/usr/src/usr/{bin,lib}, but I didn't get around to bringing it up in
our discussion, so I'll be quiet :-)

I also don't like /usr/tmp & /tmp as separate directories at all.  I
think that they should be links, one way or the other, preferably to a
fs other than root.

I agree with both removals.

michaelkjohnson
[email-masked]
I don't do .sig's.

---

From: [email-masked] (Theodore Ts'o)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 18:36:23 -0500

Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 15:59:09 CST
   From: [email-masked] (Michael K. Johnson)

No, I think they need to be different.  The big difference is that /tmp
gets cleared on reboot, and /usr/tmp does not.  So for example, if your
machine crashes while you are working, emacs autosave files (which in
/usr/tmp) don't get deleted.  However if you are using a networked
authentication system, such as Kerberos, you would want the
cryptographic information proving your identity to be stored in /tmp,
which would be deleted upon reboot.  Other temporary files which are
used by processes (like gcc) also put their files in /tmp, and they also
should be deleted upon reboot.

All in all, I like "Draft 2 of the FILE SYSTEM STRUCTURE".  My only one
nit is with /homes, which I think is a bad idea.  I would much rather
prefer /usr/homes, so that if you have an extra partition, you can mount
it over /usr/homes, but if you don't have an extra partition to spare
(and you still want the root to be small), you can leave it in the /usr
partition.  By putting that directory in /homes, you remove that choice.

It's not a big deal though.  I will probably deal with this problem by
installing a sym link from /homes to /usr/homes.  Where home directories
"really" are isn't very important anyway, since no program should be
depending on their location.

						- Ted